tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141154312018-11-18T10:06:09.097+00:00NEIL HARDINGFair Votes, Fair Media and Fair IncomeNeil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger1161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-72145217693349155952016-07-13T12:19:00.001+01:002016-07-13T19:32:57.233+01:00My Understanding of NEC Ruling (So Far!)<p>There are 3 ways to vote in the Labour leadership contest. </p><p>1. As a current full member whose membership started before January 12th 2016 and whose membership is continuous thereafter.</p><p>2. As a "registered" affiliate supporter through membership of an affiliated union or organisation. (Costs vary but much less than &#163;25) and registration is possible until August 8th 2016 (to be confirmed).</p><p>3. As a newly registered supporter (cost &#163;25) in a "48 hour window" between July 18th and 20th. (Times &amp; dates to be confirmed this Thursday 14th July).</p><p>All of this might still change, it seems very chaotic on the hoof decisions are being taken!</p><p>The exclusion of new party members (less than 6 months) might have taken away automatic voting rights from around 150,000 of Labour's 530,000 current membership. This 150,000 would have contained the heaviest concentration of Corbyn supporters. Maybe 80%+ of these 150,000 new members support Corbyn.</p><p>But don't despair. A lot of these members may still get a chance to vote. Either through being existing union members and registering as affiliate supporters for free OR by paying the &#163;25 supporter fee. Although it is still unclear whether some members will be excluded from this latter option.</p><p>It is also still unclear whether those who newly join an affiliated union or organisation will be able to vote. An August 8th 2016 cut off point has been mentioned. And this certainly would be cheaper than the &#163;25 option, maybe as little cost as &#163;2. But it seems incredible that the NEC would allow this opportunity to bypass the &#163;25 fee. Unless they have no way of influencing affiliated groups to stop it.</p><p>In the Summer 2015 Leaders Election around 422,000 votes were cast, out of a total electorate of about 550,000 eligible members, supporters &amp; affiliates.</p><p>Corbyn got 251,000 first preference votes, all his opponents together 171,000. It is important to stress that these were first prefs. Corbyn would have got more once further prefs of other eliminated candidates were added in.</p><p>58% of these 422,000 votes were by full members, 17% affiliated &amp; 25% the &#163;3 registered supporters.</p><p>So the total votes in each category were approximately as follows:-</p><p>245,000 members<br>72,000 affiliates<br>105,000 supporters</p><p>The &#163;25 charge &amp; tiny 48 hour registration period seems certain to drastically reduce the registered supporter category this time. My guess would be to less than 25,000. And if new members of affiliated organisations &amp; unions are allowed to register (until August 8th??) it would seem crazy to pay &#163;25 for a vote you can get as an affiliated supporter for much less. </p><p>So, depending on the rules, I expect the affiliate category to be much larger this time. And this I suspect is where the real battle will be. </p><p>Those 245,000 member votes came from a total party membership at the time of around 290,000. </p><p>With 150,000 new members excluded, the "six month plus" membership is probably around 330,000. So members vote prob only a little higher - around 275,000 on a similar turnout.</p><p>So in summary,</p><p>In this 2016 election, I expect around 30,000 more voters in the members category and around 80,000 less voters in the registered supporter category than the 2015 election. </p><p>This leaves the affiliate supporter category, and depending on the rules, we could see an explosion of extra votes here as the potential 150,000 excluded members go here to get their vote. This is an extra hoop they are being made to jump through, so it will be interesting to see how many follow this route (or whether they are blocked in some way). </p><p>The other unknown factor is how seriously the unions organise their vote. In 2015, apart from Unite, the unions made little effort. Some didn't endorse any candidate from the start, but this time most seem to be mobilising behind Corbyn. There is also the newly affiliated FBU and Baker's Union who strongly back Corbyn. I assume their members will now also get a chance to be affiliated supporters. </p><p>There are potentially 4m affiliated voters if all registered. Obviously as demonstrated last time, only 72,000 actually registered and then voted. Depending on the factors mentioned this could go as high as 200,000ish. Though I doubt much more than this unless the unions seriously organise their members. It will be interesting to see how much each side campaign in this category and unions tend not to be that co-operative to outside campaigners for perhaps obvious reasons. The Unite website crashed last night, which gives you an idea of where Corbyn supporters are looking to get their vote registered.</p><p>The big argument of the Labour right used to be to garner the less politically engaged votes through the supporter category. It now seems they have completely given up on that strategy with the new higher fee and tiny registration period. So, despite all the shenanigans I expect a similar number of votes - between 400,000 and 500,000 - mainly depending on the affiliate numbers (100,000 to 200,000ish). So 250,000+ votes again should give Corbyn victory.</p><p>So, I am intrigued as to what the Labour Right strategy is to defeat Corbyn? </p><p>At the moment I can only see them blaming the "union vote" for defeating them, when in actual fact most of this vote is likely to be the newer members excluded by the cut off point becoming affiliate voters.</p><p>I think Corbyn can win amongst the full membership even excluding those newer members who joined in last 6 months. Let alone the other categories! But any election is unpredictable, and this time Corbyn won't have the element of surprise or the novelty factor. A hard fought election lies ahead. I just hope it's not as nasty an election as I fear it might be. The tactics that will be used against Corbyn and his supporters could be brutal.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-75714820826694023722016-07-06T12:23:00.001+01:002016-07-08T14:55:23.849+01:0010 Reasons Why Remain Voters Should Be Cheerful About Brexit<p>1. EU Reform.<br>Finally we are getting some real noises about the sort of progressive EU reform we've been asking for. From the Czechs to the Germans, Danes and French. Governments and EU officials are unhappy about Brexit and asking why are EU citizens so unhappy that they want out. I don't believe a Bremain vote would have kickstarted anything like this. There is talk about looser arrangements for some countries, deeper integration for others, the powers of the EU parliament enhanced and Commission powers reduced. Ironically Britain whether under Cameron or Brown fought against this, so it is now more likely to happen. </p><p>2. The Breakup of the UK.<br>This is actually a good thing. British nationalism is no better than any other nationalism, in fact it is probably worse. The sort of civic nationalism arising in Scotland is internationalist and progressive. It is being held hostage by Westminster. I'm also optimistic about a new England ruling itself. New nations to the North and West will drag the economic centre to the more deprived parts of England and away from the overheating South East. And the pessimism of those that only see a Tory dominated England is so defeatist and completely untrue. The English Left will be liberated to concentrate their efforts solely on winning again in England (like they have many times in the past). I would also add that smaller political units generally tend to be more democratic. This was a genuine fear about the sprawling over-enlarged EU gaining more and more powers.</p><p>3. The Loss Of The UK's Financial Services.<br>This is a tricky one to argue in favour of, because it does involve arguing in favour of a temporary recession. But so much of our economy in financial services is causing all sorts of problems - an over-valued pound, housing bubbles, huge household debt, exacerbating the north-south divide. So much of our resources is being sucked into London, it is starving the North. <br>Recessions can cause huge damage to an economy, but are also needed to restructure. An overvalued pound is destroying the high tech industries we need for the future. Lending only to housing not business has no future. Freed from the EU, governments can foster new industry easier and alleviate absolute poverty. In a country with our wealth, no-one should be so poor they are without homes or begging on the streets. It is all about allocation of resources - investing in housing, infrastructure and industry will reduce the amount of lattes, mountain of consumer goods and domestic help the wealthier can afford, and they will squeal very loudly about it. But if the result of a slightly lower GDP is an improved quality of life for all, I'm all for it. Let's reduce car use and green over large parts of our cities and towns. We'll be poorer on paper, but have richer lives as noise, pollution, danger and stress are lessened.</p><p>4. The EU is S#&amp;t.<br>Let's be honest here, even those voting to Remain had serious doubts about the EU. Most wanted fundamental reform and were kidding themselves that this was going to happen anytime soon.</p><p>5. Some Leave Voters May Have Done The Right Thing For The Wrong Reasons.<br>Immigration is a complex subject. Some are opposed purely for racist and xenophobic reasons, we all accept that. And that is terrible and the rise in racist incidents since the referendum are awful. My hope on this, is that it is temporary. These feelings were always there and we are now seeing them manifest. We must quickly as a society make it known that this behaviour is not tolerable.<br>Also leaving the EU might make no difference to levels of immigration anyway. A point I made often while arguing for a Leave vote, and a strong Labour Leave campaign would have de-toxified this issue and perhaps reduced post-brexit tensions. Only those campaigning for Leave would have been believable when arguing that a Leave vote was not the solution to immigration issues.<br>There are genuine concerns around how quickly infrastructure and housing can be built, or even about how much land we want to cover in more roads etc. <br>The simple overlooked fact is that immigrants are people. Generally fairly young and healthy and probably more economically productive. So their tax revenues should more than cover the cost of extra services and infrastructure (in theory). But the effect on the population can be mixed from area to area. There does seem to be a class effect. The liberal middle classes were heavily for Remain, yet the working classes were more for Leave. Why was this? There are two reasons I can immediately see. <br>What realistic opportunities does free movement bring to unskilled Brits only able to speak English? Only the middle class were likely to work or learn in Europe or benefit from cheaper labour costs here. For those on low incomes in Northern towns, only the competition from EU immigrants is visible. Competition for jobs, public services and infrastructure from eager Europeans and sometimes more able and skilled Europeans.<br>When English is the world language widely spoken in Europe, free movement for the working class was only ever likely to be one way. </p><p>6. Inequality<br>Brexit has opened the door to capped banker bonuses and a financial transaction tax. The falling pound has already caused losses for "gold brick" investors from abroad buying up UK (mainly London) properties and scandalously leaving them empty while people are homeless. Lower house prices can only be good for the young and poor of this country.</p><p>7. Democracy<br>Rather than relying on an EU that hasn't passed a law protecting worker's rights since 1997, we now HAVE to beat the Tories here in the UK. Progressives need to get their act together and cooperate. Electoral pacts &amp; electoral reform are long overdue.<br>Also, every permanent resident should get citizenship and full voting rights in the country they reside. Current free movement policy goes against the principle of "no taxation without representation".</p><p>8. Environment.<br>A one sized fits all approach has been slanted toward French farmer's needs. The CAP pays our wealthiest landowners to clear woodland hills and scrubland which helps flood our towns and villages. The EU dumps surplus produce on world markets causing African farmers to lose their livelyhoods. There is little environmental in specialisation of agriculture and the added air miles of produce travelling throughout Europe.</p><p>9. The Beginning Of The End For UKIP.<br>UKIP have our biggest contingent of MEPs and their scrapping will cost UKIP millions. Farage has resigned perhaps in anticipation that the long term future for UKIP is bleak. They now have no reason to exist.</p><p>10. Maximum Chaos In The Tory Party.<br>Although it may not look like it at the moment, the Tories will have real problems from Brexit. The final four years of this parliament will be dominated by it, with little room for anything else. We need a general election soon, but there is little chance the Tories will concede one. The Tories have lost their big scapegoat, yet leaving the EU in 2019 means they are still bound by it's laws until then. </p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-24925211918766284412016-01-22T12:17:00.001+00:002016-01-23T14:20:19.602+00:00Why It Is Time For Britain To Leave The EU.<p>1. Politicians are treating voters with contempt. </p><p>There is just an assumption from the elites, that they'll just ramp up the pro EU propaganda and we'll all just fall into line. For democracy's sake, the establishment need to get a shock. </p><p>2. Britain is holding the EU back. </p><p>This is not just about the 60m people on this island, it is about the 500m on the continent. True socialists must give them equal consideration. </p><p>Has the UK given a helpful contribution in the refugee crisis? Environmental legislation? Financial transactions tax? Banker's bonus cap? Solidarity over Euro crisis? Fiscal transfers? Taxation?</p><p>I have no doubt the EU would have reached better solutions on these issues without the UK blocking and vetoing.</p><p>3. Britain will cope outside the EU. </p><p>It won't be a bed of roses and I think voters need to feel the lost benefits of being outside the EU, not just hear about them to fully appreciate what the EU is for. But bilateral deals will happen, although it could get complex....</p><p>4. We need a real debate. </p><p>Only a real risk of a Leave vote will force the arrogant elite to respond. </p><p>Why no contingencies for Brexit?</p><p>Why are the EU so quiet on how they will respond to Brexit?</p><p>We need real discussion on these issues otherwise the referendum will not satisfy those who are unhappy and we'll get a neverendum.</p><p>5. We need real negotiations.</p><p>This opportunity to push for real EU reforms that benefit all members is being missed. Lets stop the waste of having two parliaments in Brussels and Strasburg. Lets democratise the structure, giving more powers to elected MEPs and less to Eurocrats. Lets get the accounts properly signed off by auditors. Lets change the wasteful CAP. etc. etc.</p><p>And lets have transparency about trade deals like TTIP. And solidarity with poorer countries like Greece. </p><p>Britain could have won plaudits for standing up for a democratic EU. </p><p>Instead it is making "demands" and wants "concessions" for naked national interest. It looks petty and spiteful. There is no vision. No concern for the big issues the EU is currently facing and no solidarity.</p><p>Because of these worries and a concern that EU trade deals will scupper future returns to public ownership of our key services. I have come to the conclusion a long period outside the EU will help British people come to terms with their place in a 21st Century world and allow the EU to further come together in "ever closer union", which will be essential for it to overcome its present difficulties. The UK has not been a constructive member of the EU. Leaving might be the only way to change that. Better for everyone concerned.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-11264443384479967462015-08-15T13:55:00.001+01:002015-08-15T13:55:43.939+01:00The Labour Leadership & Jeremy Corbyn<p>Let's just for one moment leave aside the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn. </p><p>Can any supporter of one of the other candidates truly say their candidate is of the sort of calibre and appeal that Labour are going to need for the mammoth task of winning in 2020?</p><p>Are Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham &amp; Liz Kendall all the party can offer? They all seem very poor candidates. The evidence is in their lack of ability to motivate support behind them. Their campaigns have been dire. Even some of their biggest supporters admit that. If they cannot motivate support now, how are they going to do it in a general election?</p><p>This is not about ideology for me. Dan Jarvis is on the right of the party but he at least convinces that he could challenge the Tories.</p><p>The electability criticism was a powerful attack on Jeremy Corbyn when first used, but now it seems Jeremy is actually the most electable of all the candidates according to some new polls. </p><p>The next big criticism is that he cannot unite the party. </p><p>But could someone like Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall unite the party when they refuse to work with a candidate destined to be first choice for leader of around half the members of the party?</p><p>But a lot of the parliamentary party will refuse to accept Jeremy as leader, I hear you cry?</p><p>Actually none of the candidates have that many direct backers in the PLP. Burnham around 70, Cooper 60 and Kendall 40, not much more than Corbyn's 36 nominations. </p><p>Yes I know only around 25 of these nominations are directly for Corbyn, but most of those extra nominations were Burnham supporters &amp; will fall in line. Burnham has said he is open to being in Corbyn's cabinet. A prominent role for Burnham will mean around 110 MPs onboard, at least half of the other 120 MPs will respect the party membership &amp; unify behind this big part of the PLP. But this still leaves around 60 very unhappy MPs, maybe half of these will be hell bent on destabilising the party. </p><p>In the first instance I imagine there won't be much for these rogue MPs to rebel against. Voting against the government is not that controversial on most issues.</p><p>The big rebellion will be played out in the all too willing media. Constant briefing against the leader, rumours of plots etc. But all of this will be massively disrespectful to the membership who will have just given Corbyn a huge mandate.</p><p>There is a big difference between arguing against the party line on a point of principle and just causing mischief for the sake of it. True that Corbyn was a serial rebel, but he always respected the party and generally his rebellions were on issues backed by a significant number of the membership.</p><p>In these 30 or so constituencies with rogue MPs, members will have to ask themselves whether they really want to keep reselecting those who seem hell bent on ignoring their wishes and arrogantly not even acknowledging the members existence. </p><p>It will be difficult, but shaping the party into a strong democratic movement over the next two years will strengthen Labour's chances of electability. </p><p>Jez We Can.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-77763316844890140942015-08-11T15:52:00.001+01:002015-08-11T15:52:38.399+01:00Labour Has Always Been The Party I've Felt At Home With And Jeremy Has Brought Me Back Into The Fold.<p>I've only ever been a member of one political party - Labour. </p><p>I really wanted to see Ed Miliband become PM in May and I was gutted for Labour's Nancy Platts in Kemptown. </p><p>Yet I had for a number of years drifted away from Labour as they moved further to the right. I did publicly support &amp; vote for Caroline Lucas in May but I could not join the Green party. Something held me back. They didn't feel quite right for me.</p><p>Now, I am absolutely delighted to once again be a supporter of the Labour party. Jeremy Corbyn has given me real hope that Labour now have the artillery to win a general election. He has drawn be back into my Labour home. And I look forward to becoming an activist once again within a Labour movement confident of it's socialist roots. </p><p>But best of all, Corbyn is outlining clearly how to do it.</p><p>After initial short term borrowing, council homes could be big income generators in the medium to long term helping to pay down government debt. Corbyn will free councils to raise funds to build as many homes as their community needs. Private house builders are reluctant to build on brownfield sites because their profit is slightly less. In fact they seem reluctant to build at all when sitting on landbanks is such easy profit. Councils will have no such incentive.</p><p>Education is more than just individual advancement. It benefits the whole of society. Corbyn recognises this and why it should be paid for by general (progressive) taxation not by individual loans that are bound to hit the poorest harder. </p><p>And austerity rewards the irresponsible lenders by placing all the blame for debt on borrowers driven to desperate measures by out of control inequality. Corbyn will passionately make the case for a true "all in it together" philosophy where lenders do share some of the responsibility. </p><p>I could go on, but the point is Corbyn is outlining the case for a strident Labour party. We have tried timid Labour, it has lost 2 elections badly. I want to passionately want Labour to win. Like Blair, Corbyn can make that case, but times have changed since 1997 and it requires a new argument. Corbyn has refreshed Labour and I now desperately want to be on board and help them win elections once again.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-37620539615048137192015-06-07T14:43:00.001+01:002015-06-07T17:02:18.877+01:00Labour Need Clever Populist Policies That Deliver A Left Philosophy<p>Labour are almost certainly going to lose the 2020 general election. The electoral geography and political realities are the worst they have been for Labour since their foundation.</p><p>The offer to the public in 2020 needs to be so huge and widely supported that tweaking policies here and there is just not going to cut the mustard.</p><p>Labour need a 1997 level of win in votes just to achieve a small majority. </p><p>These are facts, not pessimism. And if Labour do not face up to them, 2020 is already lost. </p><p>Of course, a lot could happen in 5 years to change this. The Tories although in a strong position, face some tough hurdles - the EU referendum, Scottish cessation, continued brutal public spending cuts, their promises on the NHS and the deficit, their muddle on human rights and housing. </p><p>All of this could trip them up. The economic credit bubble could once again burst. But Labour can't count on voters turning to them. Voters are turning to more radical options - SNP, Greens and even UKIP. </p><p>Labour need to think big to address their big problems. </p><p>Labour have completely lost Scotland and Southern England. If they're not careful, the rest could follow. </p><p>The two biggest problems - Labour are not trusted with public spending/ taxation AND thanks to a hopeless situation in Scotland, Labour have to win most votes in England. Something they haven't done since 2001. </p><p>The constitution is a complete mess. The Tory solutions are weak - English only committees and devolving services locally but without control of funding. This beats Labour, who are scared of saying anything much, but there is a big opportunity here for Labour. </p><p>English voters think they are getting a raw funding deal compared to Scotland. While Scots feel too much fiscal power lies in England. A big offer here could please both. </p><p>The over centralised UK has been obvious for decades, ever since Thatcher abolished a lot of local government in the 80s, the power has moved one way. Local government is capped and restricted in almost everything it does. The Tories have found local government a great way to hide central government cuts. By devolving services without the funding to pay for them. The Tories are being clever. </p><p>Labour could trump the Tories offer. I've thought long and hard about the UK's devolution problem. I used to think regional devolution was the answer. This was started in London with the GLA. The English regions would be similar in population size to Scotland. But the new Scottish tax powers has now made that problematic. You can't really have different income tax rates between Newcastle and Manchester. The Tories greater City Mayors is another fudge. </p><p>The only solution I can see satisfying the English public is an English parliament, with the same powers as the Scottish parliament. </p><p>This has huge advantages for Labour. </p><p>It would win them votes in England. And if all fiscal powers were devolved, would win them support in Scotland too, who resent Westminster deciding tax rates and spending for the whole UK. </p><p>But also the new English parliament could replace the House of Lords and use it's chamber and would have to be elected in the same way as the Scottish parliament, by PR. </p><p>PR would stop the fragmentation of England between North and South by stopping one party dominating with a minority of the vote. The UK parliament would control security and foreign affairs, with taxes and spending devolved to each country. Further devolution to councils would be decided at country level. </p><p>The other solution for Labour is to grasp the nettle of tax and spending. Offer the British people a referendum on tax and spending levels, arguing 37% support in a general election is not enough of a mandate to decide the direction of the country on this issue. </p><p>Do we want Scandanavian services and welfare or US levels of social problems. Labour should trust the people. An offer of a referendum would kill this as a negative issue for Labour, because whatever the people decide they would abide by. It would free Labour up to campaign for fairer and higher levels of tax and spend. But people would know the final decision would be theirs. </p><p>This would win support across the political spectrum and be difficult for Tories and their right wing press to campaign against. Also it would satisfy both left and right within the Labour party itself.</p><p>So, a parliament for the English and a clear referendum to decide taxation levels and the consequent public spending. This could put the Tories on the back foot and be a bold enough vision to show Labour was ready for power once again. The fairness of a PR elected English parliament would appeal to Green supporters, while the concept of an English parliament would apeal to Ukippers and Tories. </p><p>Without powerful promises such as this, the left could continue to fragment. Certainly lots of left voters will not want to support a Labour party chasing Tory and Ukip support by being mean to immigrants and the vulnerable. Without a centre-left Labour party, I see little future for Labour.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-76410922399624488762015-06-05T08:45:00.001+01:002015-06-05T10:16:12.939+01:00The Single Non Transferable Vote<p>Thanks to another blogger (Thank you Paul Z Templeton) I now know the name of the voting system I have been advocating (SEE TITLE, I know, I should have known this!). </p><p>Paul is a big advocate of another system - the Single Transferable Vote (STV). But I'm not so impressed with STV.</p><p>The main problem I have with STV is the complexity of the system. </p><p>I know it is easy enough to rank candidates in order 1,2,3, but I think it is really important for the legitimacy of the system that the counting process is also easily understood. </p><p>Also, preference voting itself, tends to favour centrist candidates. Centrist campaigning is one of the big flaws of our present first-past-the-post system as well. </p><p>Virtually all those elected are centrist non-entities, or at least pretend to be, which is even worse. Our extremists are hidden in the FPTP or STV systems. </p><p>By definition, in a more proportional system, the majority will still be fairly centrist, but minorities will also (shock, horror!) get a MINORITY of the seats. This allows more radical (and yes sometimes extremist) views to get a hearing. But we ALL get more honest and open MPs as a result.</p><p>Presently our candidates are forced into compromising their principles. The most honest candidates have to be really careful that their policies always appeal to most (if not all) of the population. Which I think leads to bad politics, because necessarily unpopular or radical policies are just hidden till after the election and not properly debated.</p><p>Looking to Irish politics is not a good advert for STV. STV has not enabled Ireland to form long lasting social and economic policies. The countries that do best in terms of social, economic and environmental policies have the most proportional systems. Which brings me on to the next flaw of STV, it's lack of proportionality.</p><p>To keep the number of candidates on the ballot down to manageable levels and to keep candidates local, there is a necessity to limit the magnitude of multi member districts to 3 to 6 seats in STV systems. This limits the proportionality considerably, with effective thresholds that are far too high - from 14% to as high as 25%. This shuts out minority parties and views from being elected and heard.</p><p>This is where we get to the key advantages of the Single NON transferable vote (SNTV), which is the system I am advocating.</p><p>Because surplus and split votes are not transferred, parties have to manage their wasted votes themselves by limiting the number of candidates they stand, to those with a good chance of election and targeting different candidates at different constituencies within the multi member district. These are both desirable aims.</p><p>This enables SNTV to operate at much higher magnitude districts (10-16 seats), which guarantees high proportionality (effective thresholds from 3% to 7%), but still provide ultra local candidates and manageable ballot papers. </p><p>Looking at where SNTV has operated worldwide. Where it is used exclusively, it provides extraordinary proportionality and ensures minorities get a say. </p><p>The weaknesses in terms of wasted votes tend to happen where districts are too low magnitude or too many "no hope" candidates are allowed to stand. </p><p>It is important for SNTV to work well that the nominations process acts to filter out candidates with no chance of winning. </p><p>This is easily achieved by setting a high bar in terms of the number of supporters required to get on the ballot paper. I suggest each candidate needs 500 local electors who have donated to their campaign in the 12 months preceding an election. </p><p>I prefer this to garnering signatures and large deposits, because someone's wealth should not be an issue. And each donor could donate as little as &#163;1 and it shows much more of a commitment to a candidate than a signature.</p><p>Overall, I think that to be inclusive to ALL voters, we need a voting system that is very simple to understand, provides ultra local candidates and proportional results. SNTV does all these things. A simple X by the candidate of your choice and the candidates with the most votes are elected. Simple and fair.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-87845695659850597842015-05-28T09:42:00.001+01:002015-06-02T19:41:39.593+01:00Flexibility Is The Key To A Good Voting System<p>My proposal is that every elector gets one vote for one candidate and the top candidates in votes are elected to the seats. So if there are 16 MPs in a county, the 16 candidates with the most votes are elected.</p><p>The more I look into the practicalities of this, the more I like it. </p><p>It is very proportional and very easy to understand. The candidates with the most votes are elected. No complicated formulas or party lists. No safe seats, expensive boundary reviews or 2 classes of MP. And most of all no silly results with parties amassing millions of votes for little or no MPs.</p><p>The clever part is how this system deals with "split votes". Which is at the root of the problem for most systems. </p><p>Rather than the smaller parties having the largest burden of split votes and thereby being completely shut out of parliament, every party has to manage the problem of potential split votes or face losing seats. </p><p>And it is easily managed by parties by them adjusting the number of candidates that they stand and by having candidates target local areas. Both good for the working of the system.</p><p>Thus providing ultra local candidates to those voters that vote for local candidates and keeping numbers of candidates on the ballot paper down to manageable levels. </p><p>Also, the voter knows that EVERY candidate on the ballot paper has a real chance of being elected. This is REAL choice. Wasted votes are kept to a minimum because all parties have to aim to minimise surplus votes and only stand candidates with a real chance of election. </p><p>No hoper candidates would harm other candidates in the party by wasting party support. </p><p>Also the proportionality and the fairly low threshold give independent candidates a chance, but only if they pass the strict entry criteria - 500 electors in the county having donated at least a pound to their campaign in the 12 months before the election. </p><p>This also makes it difficult for the larger parties to just "parachute" in candidates from elsewhere. They will need to have built up local support in the preceding 12 months to garner enough support for every party candidate to make the ballot paper.</p><p>Easy enough if you are a serious candidate with decent levels of support but this will stop joke and time waster candidates clogging up the ballot paper. </p><p>It cannot be right that all you need is a spare &#163;500 deposit to stand. This purely money based system that we have now goes against the principle of democracy. By having to garner 500 real electors willing to donate &#163;1 to a campaign, it will demonstrate really strong support for a candidate before they get on the ballot paper. There might even be an argument for making this donation threshold even higher, maybe 1000 donations. The idea of setting the minimum donation at &#163;1 is to make it affordable for all electors to back a candidate.</p><p>Thereby everyone on the ballot paper will have a strong chance of being elected. To be elected you need to get approximately 4% of the vote or more (depending on the size of the county and how the vote splits this threshold might be as high as 8%). </p><p>It is the "self correcting" aspect that is the genius part of the system. It is the flexibility of the system that is its strength, allowing voters to decide the rules of the system rather than faceless bureaucrats. Voters decide how local the candidates will be and also the areas they represent within each county.</p><p>In Sussex, to guarantee finishing in the top 16 places and become an MP, you'd need 5.88% of the county vote. (1/17 Thanks for correction, Christine. See comments below)</p><p>This is the optimum vote. If you get above this you're elected. If a candidate gets far more than this they are safely elected. But whereas safe seats in FPTP are useful for a party, too many surplus votes in this system can damage a party's chances by wasting party votes that could have elected other candidates.</p><p>There will be wider choice for the voter with around 17 to 23 candidates on the ballot paper. This is still a manageable level. You can have this many candidates in current byelections.</p><p>Each party would likely stand one more candidate than they think they would win in seats. And there would likely be at least one independent stand. </p><p>In a 16 seat county, that might mean 23 candidates. Very unlikely to be more than that, because parties would avoid wasting votes. </p><p>Parties would judge support by opinion polls. I know polls infamously can be wrong, but they are accurate enough for this purpose (within 6% accuracy).</p><p>Voters would be able to choose from ultra local candidates from the more popular parties in the local area or for smaller parties maybe standing for a wider area in the county. Independents might be ultra local or wider. It all depends on size and concentration of support. </p><p>Officials wouldn't have to agonise over which streets to include in some arbitrary boundaries, it would all be decided by voters and parties responding to that and boundaries would be invisible and flexible.</p><p>All the officials would do is set the number of seats in a county according to the population. This would also mean poorer areas with low voter registration wouldn't be shortchanged on representation.</p><p>If we look at our Sussex example using party votes from the general election projected onto likely candidates we can see that the vote needed to be elected is lower than 6.25%. </p><p>This is because votes for party candidates are not going to be perfectly spread. </p><p>In Sussex the 1st place candidate would be elected with 6.75% of the vote and the 16th placed candidate elected with 3.82%. </p><p>The 6 candidates falling below this figure were unelected with combined totals of 18.4% of the vote. These votes elected no-one, so could be called the "wasted" votes under my system.</p><p>If we now compare these figures with the percentage of the county vote the current Sussex MPs have under first-past-the-post. </p><p>These varied from the highest vote for an MP of 4.07% (Peter Bottomley) to the lowest elected at 2.19% (Simon Kirby) of the Sussex vote. </p><p>The total votes not electing anyone in Sussex under first-past-the-post are 50.31%. So the majority of votes could be said to be wasted votes.</p><p>So, we can see that under my proposed system, MPs are elected with more votes and there are less wasted votes. We also get a highly proportional result. The Tories in Sussex with 48% of the vote, get 50% of the seats, (whereas they get 88% of the seats under FPTP). LABOUR 19%,19% (6%). UKIP 14%, 13% (0%). LIBDEMs 11%, 13%, (0%). GRNS 7%, 6%, (6%).</p><p>So, voters could vote for an ultra local Tory or Labour candidate, or maybe a UKIP, LibDem or Green candidate covering a wider area. The choice is for the voter. Their votes will determine how many candidates are local. </p><p>The election will always be close between the election of a candidate in 16th place and non elected place immediately below this - a fraction of a percent. So every candidate can be considered worth voting for. </p><p>But if you live in say Worthing, you are probably very likely to vote for a candidate covering your area rather than say a Brighton and Hove candidate and vice versa. Although you could vote cross county if you liked that candidate. There is that freedom. </p><p>It would be interesting to see this system in practice. I'm confident it would work. Even if there was a lot of cross county voting and wide disparities in votes between candidates in the same party. It would still deliver reasonable proportionality and legitimacy. If a candidate does get a low vote and fails to get elected, whose fault is that? </p><p>This system is fair, simple to understand and still provides local MPs if voters vote that way. In short there is still a direct link between elected candidates and voters. It would be cheaper to run than our present system and it provides proportional results without 2 classes of MP. </p><p>Indeed MPs are likely to be elected with more votes than now and there will be less difference between their support. </p><p>Nationally at the moment MPs are elected with anything from 12,000 votes to over 40,000. In my system it is unlikely any MP will be elected with less than 25,000 votes. In my Sussex example the lowest would be 32,265 votes to garner the 16th and final elected place.</p><p>So, spread the word. Lets elect our MPs county by county by placing an X next to our favoured candidate. Simple and easy. A "Fairest Past The Post" system.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-70008371656281583882015-05-25T20:59:00.001+01:002015-05-26T15:45:58.962+01:00All Voting Systems Are Crazy (Except Mine).<p>Currently with our voting system of first-past-the-post (FPTP), the number of seats a party receives bears little relation to their number of votes. </p><p>In the 2010 election campaign, the polls briefly showed the Lib Dems on the most support, yet they were predicted to finish a poor third in seats. The third placed Labour party were predicted to get most seats. </p><p>In this general election 5 million votes delivered just 2 seats out of 650 for the Greens and Ukip but 1.5 million votes delivered 56 to the SNP. </p><p>Not to forget we now regularly get "majority" government on 30 something percent of the vote. And FPTP is terrible at representing the population. There is a massive under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and the working class.</p><p>Most democrats would concede that this is unacceptable. Only the vested interests of Labour and Tory politicians perpetuate this system. It is a democratic disgrace.</p><p>Yet the Electoral Reform Society supports another seriously flawed system, the Single Transferable Vote (STV). </p><p>This is a system where a candidate can actually increase their number of votes, yet DECREASE their chances of election. Once again unacceptable. </p><p>I won't bore you with the details, but if people rejected the Alternative Vote for being too difficult to understand, STV has no chance of being understood! </p><p>STV is also (like FPTP) prone to have "wrong winners" (where 2nd in votes wins most seats) and STV is not even that proportional. (though admittedly it is fairer than FPTP). And like FPTP it doesn't lead to representative social groups being elected. </p><p>Then there are list systems of PR and I quite like these, as they are proportional and more representative of the population, but it does mean voters feel more distant from politicians. </p><p>Whatever the value of a "constituency link", it does allow voters to "link" a politician to a small geographical area. Perhaps this is an illusion of "accountability"&#160;when 75% of seats are "safe", but at least a direct link between voters and elected is there.</p><p>Finally there are systems that mix more than one of the above systems together but they create 2 classes of MP, with completely different levels of accountability and this mixed system still has the flaws of the systems it combines.</p><p>This is where my proportional "fairest" past the post system comes in (see previous post). </p><p>Like now, every voter gets one vote. Like now they vote for the candidate of their choice. Like now, the candidates with the most votes are elected. And voters can choose candidates for as local an area as now. The difference is, we get one vote to elect 16 MPs from the county. We can only choose one candidate from our preferred party. So this means each candidate has to appeal to different areas of the county or risk taking votes from their comrades and preventing their election.</p><p>The beauty is, my system is self regulating. Voters decide the size of constituency that politicians are accountable to when they decide who to vote for. These areas can overlap or "float" within the county boundaries. Candidates will respond to communities and their level of support to determine where to focus their campaigns.&#160; Parties will try to evenly spread their candidates to achieve just enough votes to be elected but not too many that would split the party votes to thin and risk losing seats.</p><p>Parties will naturally target their candidates in geographic areas (although they could do it in other ways - e.g. policy differences) and they will only stand candidates with a good chance of winning to avoid splitting their own vote and losing seats. This automatically ensures proportionality and keeps the ballot paper to a manageable number of candidates. </p><p>And because parties stand more than one candidate on the ballot paper, it would be really noticeable if there were no women or minorities or if all the candidates were middle class. Much more pressure to "balance" their offer.</p><p>The results are easy to understand. Candidates have to finish high enough in the race to qualify for election. The voters decide who makes the cut.</p><p>People like the idea of a race. Our present system has 650 races with first place in each getting to parliament. </p><p>My system would have about 50 races, with the top 12 to 16 placed finishers in each race qualifying for parliament (depending on the size of county, counties or boroughs used). </p><p>But my system would also deliver fair representation for parties and independents in line with their number of votes. It would also not have arbitrary boundaries decided by faceless bureaucrats.</p><p>The big problem with our current boundary based system is, no matter how hard you try, the boundaries will be unfair to those parties who don't concentrate their votes "in the right places". </p><p>It is also open to abuse. You may have independent boundary reviewers, but the rules they abide by are written (and skewed) by politicians. Also officials are heavily lobbied by party machines and incumbent MPs. </p><p>It is perfectly possible to have drawn different boundaries at the last election (all equally sized) that would have given either Ed Miliband or David Cameron (depending on political taste) a huge landslide victory without changing a single vote. That's how much difference boundary reviews can make. The voters are almost irrelevant and that can't be right.</p><p>If you don't believe me, google "gerrymander wheel".</p><p>Finally, a party would have to get 50% of the vote (or very close to it) to govern alone under my system. But do we really want one party rule with 35% of the vote? And as multi party voting seems set to increase, how low can we go before this absurdity makes alice in wonderland look sane?</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-88667001989973646112015-05-22T08:52:00.001+01:002015-05-24T14:57:56.999+01:00Fair Past The Post<p>What most voters want. </p><p>1. A Local MP. <br>You vote for one candidate that represents your local area and is directly accountable to voters at a geographical level similar to now. </p><p>2. Simplicity. <br>You have one vote by placing a X next to the candidate of your choice. The candidates with the most votes are elected.</p><p>3. Fairness. <br>The number of seats is in line with the number of votes.</p><p>Our present system of first-past-the-post, delivers on the first two principles, but not the last one. Basically what people seem to want is a proportional version of first-past-the-post and it is a possibility. </p><p>A slight tweak to our system would deliver all three principles. Let me explain.</p><p>The population of the UK is around 65 million. Our current number of MPs at Westminster is 650. </p><p>That rather neatly works out at around 100,000 population for each MP.&#160; </p><p>For example, Sussex has a population of 1.6m and returns 16 MPs to Westminster.</p><p>This sort of size area is perfect for what I am proposing. Most of the non metropolitan counties return between 8 and 16 MPs.&#160; Metropolitan counties vary more, but can be ideally sized by combining several boroughs. An area returning 12 to 16 MPs is the ideal and could be achieved by combining 2 smaller counties if appropriate.</p><p>My idea is to continue voting for one candidate but to allow candidates to stand across the whole county and votes across the whole county area to be counted.</p><p>So, in my Sussex example, the 16 candidates with the most votes across the county are elected. </p><p>It is a bit like how we elect ward councillors in multi member wards except voters will get one vote instead of multiple votes. </p><p>Using the results of the last general election we might have got the following results in Sussex using my system.</p><p>P. Bottomley CON(Worthing) 56,954<br>P.Kyle LAB(Brighton+Hove) 54724<br>S.Kirby CON(Brighton+Hove) 51722<br>D.Cooper LDEM (Sussex) 51338<br>F.Maude CON(Crawley+Horsham) 48953<br>G.Bastin UKIP(East Sussex) 48498<br>C.Lucas GREEN(East Sussex) 42143<br>S.Owen LAB(East Sussex excl. B+H) 40995<br>G.Jones UKIP(West Sussex Coastal) 40911<br>C.Ansell CON(Eastbourne+Lewes) 40140<br>N.Baker LDEM(Eastbourne+Lewes) 38324<br>C.Oxlade LAB(Crawley+Chichester+<br>Bognor+Arundel) 36068<br>N.Herbert CON(Arundel &amp; S. Downs) 34331<br>A.Tyrie CON(Chichester) 32953<br>N.Ghani CON(Wealdon) 32508<br>N.Soames CON(Mid Sussex) 32268</p><p>These are the 16 candidates that would be elected under my system. With a further 6 unelected.</p><p>T.Macpherson LAB (Worthing+Horsham+Mid Sussex) 32173<br>G.Barker CON(Bexhill+Battle) 30245<br>A.Moncrief UKIP(West Sussex Mid+North) 25406<br>N.Gibb CON (Bognor+Littlehampton) 24185<br>A.Rudd CON (Hastings+Rye) 22686<br>J.Richmond GREEN (West Sussex) 20584</p><p>The result is very proportional</p><p>CON 48% votes 50% seats (8 of 16)<br>LAB 19% votes 19% seats (3 of 16)<br>UKIP 14% votes 13% seats (2 of 16)<br>LDEM 11% votes 13% seats (2 of 16)<br>GREEN 7% votes 6% seats (1 of 16)</p><p>Whereas the actual result under our present system was 14 Tories, 1 Lab and 1 Green. Over half of Sussex voters had no impact on the result under our present system and the majority of counties are similar.</p><p>Of course, these are the votes under FPTP. Under a PR system the voting is even more fair because it would remove some tactical and protest voting.</p><p>The eagle eyed amongst you may have noticed in the above example that the Tories fielded 11 candidates (8 were elected), Labour 4 (3), UKIP 3 (2), Lib Dems 2 (2), and Greens 2 (1). This led to a total of 22 candidates standing for 16 seats.</p><p>Why would the parties not stand more candidates than this?</p><p>This is where the beauty of my system comes in. </p><p>At the moment it makes sense for parties to stand as many candidates as possible (as many as they can afford in lost deposits). </p><p>This results in "split votes" between ideologically similar parties and ideologically similar candidates resulting in millions of voters electing no-one while other candidates win with far less than 50% of the vote.</p><p>Under my system, the parties can manage this by only standing candidates that have a real chance of being elected. If they stand too many candidates, their party could lose seats by "splitting" their own vote between candidates.</p><p>What my system does is spread the problem of split votes equally between ALL the parties rather than just those ideologically similar.</p><p>Another unique feature of my system is it removes the need for difficult and expensive drawing of boundaries. All you need to do is to allocate the number of MPs to be elected in line with the county population. </p><p>It is for THE CANDIDATES themselves to determine the areas where they want to target local electorates. </p><p>In the example above, you can see parties have given a geographical label to each candidate and each candidate would concentrate their efforts there and be accountable to that area of the county. </p><p>Why would they do that? Because if every candidate campaigned across the whole county, it would risk wide disparities in their votes and reduce the number of seats they won. Parties would aim to spread their votes fairly evenly between their candidates to maximise the seats won. </p><p>The easiest way to do this would be to target each geographical area with a different party candidate. This is where "the local link" is maintained and accountability with voters strengthened. </p><p>The larger parties would target "constituencies" of a similar size to now, whereas the smaller parties would target bigger areas, right up to the whole county area being targeted for the smallest parties.</p><p>To make absolutely sure that no unnecessary joke or ego candidates clogged up the ballot paper, I would abolish the current &#163;500 deposit and replace it with a condition that every candidate has a minimum of 500 electors in the county who had donated at least &#163;1 each to their campaign in the 12 months running up to the election.</p><p>This would remove any time waster candidates, who at the moment just need a big ego and be willing to a lose a &#163;500 deposit. </p><p>Democracy is too important to be the plaything of&#160;wealthy joker candidates. Any serious candidate with really wide support would be easily able to muster 500 paid up supporters from a county with around 1.2m electors. In practise an independent candidate with significant support from the electorate would probably stand more chance of being elected than now. They would need just 6% or so of the countywide vote. There is not a single elected independent MP in GB at the moment.</p><p>In conclusion, voters keep the close geographical link with a candidate. They keep the simple vote and counting process and they get the proportionality they want between parties. What is not to like?</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-70148528065126756262015-05-14T21:48:00.001+01:002015-05-17T12:16:06.121+01:00What Is A Tory?<p>Like the Guardian's Suzanne Moore, my parents were "working class Tories". Not lifelong Tories, like her parents, but intermittant Tories. I particularly remember they voted Thatcher in 1979 (and later regretted it).</p><p>They voted for pretty much every party available from there on in.</p><p>Liberal/SDP throughout the 80s, Blair in the 90s, BNP, even Green, then finally UKIP. </p><p>This seems completely baffling and irrational from the point of view of a political anorak like myself. As Suzanne Moore says, it is easy to sneer.</p><p>Are all Tories politically uninformed and/or selfish? I have many friends from my schooldays who are Tories, my eldest brother's family are Tories and some of them are the nicest people you could meet in terms of helping family, friends etc.</p><p>But their political views seem vicious to me. A real disdain for the poor. An "I'm alright attitude". An incomprehension of what happens to them if THEY fall on really hard times. If their health or wealth fail them. </p><p>They see the attack on the welfare state as a good thing - reducing the amount THEY have to pay for "others" who are "just lazy".&#160; </p><p>They do not recognise welfare as a useful insurance for THEM. And increasingly, as means testing takes over, they are right. </p><p>Save a few quid, get your earnings above the bare minimum and the welfare you pay for is taken away.</p><p>No one is making the argument that middle to high earners deserve welfare too. Yet we should be making that argument. Not surprisingly, when it is taken away from them, they do not want to pay for it anymore or vote for it. As Bevan said "welfare for the poor only, is poor welfare".</p><p>Welfare as a concept is about insurance. Social insurance or as it was known until the 1980s, social security. In other European countries it is known as "solidarity" with "solidarity taxes" to pay for it. A nice concept that the Labour party would do well to take up.</p><p>The Labour party were at their best when creating and defending universal welfare. Council houses were built for all, with many middle class housed in them after the war. The NHS of course is universal. A concept the Tories are trying everything they can to undermine. The best benefits are universal too - the state pension, free bus passes, child benefit, maternity/paternity leave etc.</p><p>And social security used to be generous. It puts a floor under wages. Low paying employers have to compete. If benefit levels are decent, they have to pay decent wages to all. </p><p>Affordability doesn't come into it. It doesn't apply to welfare, because welfare is just a redistribution of money. The money is there, you jyst have to move it from rich to poor. This is about a functioning society. This is not about creating wealth to pay for services. This is about reducing wealth at the top end to fund everyone else. </p><p>Does this affect productivity? Does this affect the desire to work? Aren't there too few rich to tax? Won't they just move abroad?</p><p>These are the scare stories and largely that is exactly what they are. They are not based on fact. The wealthy do have the money, they do not move abroad and productivity is not affected. We know this, because in more equal countries we can observe it.</p><p>Tory voters see public services as largely superfluous to their needs. And apart from a few council services, the police and the NHS, they are unconcerned about cutbacks. They see the NHS as still fine and free to use at point of use and do not realise the extent it is under threat. </p><p>Of course some Tories are&#160; undoubtedly selfish or ignorant of the issues. And so are some Labour voters, or voters of any other party for that matter. It's a question of degree. But even if Tories were all being selfish. How does that help those of us on the left?</p><p>Are they turkeys voting for christmas? A lot of us on the left are convinced of this. We get accused of arrogance for espousing this view. But undoubtedly a lot of us who believe this ARE more politically informed than our Tory voting peers. </p><p>Who reads manifestos? I live and breathe politics. I know more policy proposals off the top of my head than anyone I know. But I still only know a fraction of each manifesto.</p><p>For at least the last 40 years of my parent's life, they never saw their vote affect the result anyway. They lived in a safe seat. That is probably the bigger issue than political education.</p><p>My dad finished up as a UKIP voter, even enthusiastically displaying their poster in his window.</p><p>His political journey seems typical of an average surburban voter. </p><p>The Tories don't dominate the suburbs, but they do win more votes there than Labour. </p><p>This is the key. How do Labour win back the suburbs? Or even, how do we persuade the suburbs that the Tories really aren't your friends. If there is an economic crash by 2020, Labour might not have to. The economy is the Tories ace card. If their credibility goes on that, like after 1992, they will haemorrhage votes.</p><p>But Labour now have other Tories to fight - UKIP. UKIP are basically Tories without the damaged brand name. Until voters see UKIP in power, they cannot judge them. </p><p>Labour actually did quite well in big town and city centres. But they did terribly elsewhere. </p><p>From my point of view, I am beginning to not care who Labour choose for their leader, or what direction they take. If Labour win on a right wing platform or lose again on a platform pretending to the left (but manifestly refusing to defend universal benefits), then there is little point to their existence.</p><p>The bigger question is where their voters go. If UKIP continue to build up support from those who economically are on the left. Then we are in real trouble. </p><p>I look for a renaissance on the left. And hope that things don't have to get too much worse before there is a reaction. But lets hope we don't leave it too late. The USA shows, once universal welfare is gone (whether healthcare or social) it is near impossible to get back. </p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-26246502197376629012015-05-13T12:18:00.001+01:002015-05-13T16:03:37.484+01:00My General Election Prediction Was Completely Wrong.<p>Yeah. I know. I got the general election completely wrong (though I did ok in my council election predictions). I think I can safely say I wasn't the only one to get the general election result wrong.</p><p>Some of you might remember that on a 2pt LAB lead, I predicted the following Westminster seats. </p><p>LAB 279 CON 269 SNP 47 LDEM 25 UKIP 6 GRN 1 OTH 23</p><p>Whereas the actual result was.</p><p>LAB 232 CON 331 SNP 56 LDEM 8 UKIP 1 GRN 1 OTH 21</p><p>Even on a slight Tory lead, I was confident both Labour and Tory would be in the range 260-290 and probably less than 20 seats apart.</p><p>My biggest errors (apart from believing the polls) were:-</p><p>1. Thinking the Tories couldn't increase their popular vote from the 2010 result. They did (from 10.7m to 11.3m). </p><p>2. Thinking that if the polls were wrong, they would be underestimating Labour support (due to pollsters methodology allowing for "shy Tories").</p><p>3. Believing the narrative that the Lib Dems would hold on to lots of&#160;seats despite their dismal poll rating. I should have trusted my instinct on this. If Nick Clegg (in the 50th safest Lib Dem seat was struggling to hang on) surely the other 49 would be too. And most of these had the Tories as challengers.</p><p>4. Thinking the 2010 seat boundaries (which were not much different to 2005 boundaries which gave Labour 92 more seats for a tied vote), would still be favourable to Labour in England. They weren't!</p><p>5. Underestimating the polarising effect of our voting system (urban vs surburban/rural, North vs South). And with so many "ultra marginals" determined by literally a few hundred votes either way, the sheer lunatic unpredictability of our system.</p><p>Our voting system creates voter ghettoes and I think it is very easy to get stuck in a partizan bubble. Whole groups of voters walk around without meeting many of a different ideology amongst their friends and neighbours.</p><p>Voting systems affect results in a big way! Not just in seat allocation but in how people vote. </p><p>Our system has led, over the decades, to hordes of tactical and protest voters being built up, as voters desperately try to make the most of a bad system. So it is very difficult to make sense of voter preferences from national vote shares.</p><p>But it has also led to voter suppression. People hate voting for losers. At this election 63% voted for losing parties. This has a huge effect. A lot of people lose heart. Also in a system where 75% of seats rarely, if ever change hands, supporters of parties become lackadaisical about turning out to vote.</p><p>There is a whole host of statistics highlighting the madness of our system - </p><p>Nearly 4m UKIP voters get 1 seat whereas 1.5m SNP voters get 56 seats.</p><p>While 700,000 Scottish Labour voters get 1 seat, 500,000 Welsh Labour voters get 25. </p><p>And worst of all, the lead party, however low their vote, can win a majority of seats and all the power. In this case the Tories on just 37% of the vote got 51% of seats. </p><p>The new boundaries due by 2018, would have given them 54% of seats on the same vote. A majority for one party with just 29% of the vote might not be too far away.</p><p>Votes clearly aren't equal. Which is what our geographical system is all about. Concentration of a party's vote is the number one and only issue. Everything else, national voteshare and order of parties in terms of votes is incidental.</p><p>Having one "winner" in each seat takes precedence over everything else. </p><p>Making more predictions now seems heretical, but here I go again. <br>Looking at the results in more detail shows that Labour actually did quite well in the centre of big towns and cities, but very badly in the outer suburbs, small towns and villages. </p><p>This follows the usual pattern of the Labour/Tory split in the vote, but is getting more extreme. I believe growing inequality is one cause but also our voting system exacerbates this by switching off the voters that are continually ignored. </p><p>We are seeing two nations develop. The better off are moving apart from the poor. This has always been the case but now it is getting even more intense. The North/South divide continues to grow. As Labour leadership hope Dan Jarvis put it "More people have walked on the moon than there are Labour MPs in the South of England".</p><p>The non Labour &amp; Tory vote is still around a third of voters in general electiond. But even this, is probably an underestimate of true support. In the European Parliament elections, Labour and Tory combined struggled to get half the votes.</p><p>Labour have a huge dilemma. Scotland is now a whole swath of safish SNP seats. Labour are unlikely to win more than a handful back in 2020, if any. </p><p>The Tory/Labour battleground will be England &amp; Wales. The Tories successfully stoked English nationalism to scare voters off a Labour/SNP government. What is to stop them doing this again in 2020. Labour have to find an answer to this. </p><p>The only solution is to embrace the SNP and highlight how insulting and undemocratic it would be to exclude Scottish voters choice of MPs. Also they need to highlight how the SNP could be an asset in government and that to not include them would be a threat to the UK. Labour tried distancing themselves from the SNP, but with the SNP politically bound to back any Labour administration over Tory, it lacks credibility. </p><p>But even bigger than Labour's Scottish problem are their lost voters in England and Wales.</p><p>Labour can either compete for the 40% or so of voters who lean Tory but put at risk their own 30%. Or they can try to unite the disparate, disenchanted and/or leftish vote that makes up the majority, but is spread across a range of parties. But Labour cannot do both of these things.</p><p>Going after the Tory vote is probably easier, but they would hemmorhage voters to UKIP and the Greens. </p><p>UKIP strangely appeal to disenchanted leftish supporters. If you look at their voter's views on nationalising the railways, the NHS and inequality etc. They are generally to the left of Labour policy. </p><p>Of course they also tend to have very rightwing views on immigration and the EU, but most UKIP voters, I think, would recoil at UKIP policies if enacted. Rational?</p><p>So, what is the answer to the Left's dilemma? </p><p>Caroline Lucas of the Greens has talked about a left of centre pact,&#160; avoiding each other in key seats, but voters generally take a dim view of such things. It could work, as it has for the DUP and UUP in Northern Ireland, but their vote is bound by strong religious bonds. Voters can react in unexpected ways to pacts, as the closer two parties are ideologically, the more tribal animosity between the two sets of supporters can be.</p><p>My radical solution, which I know won't happen, but I think would work, would be for all the parties that want vote reform (which admittedly would be an unholy alliance) to stand on one ticket at the next election, with just one policy - electoral reform. This would almost certainly need Labour to be involved but not necessarily.</p><p>Would a UKIP/Green/SNP/PC/LibDem alliance as the "Voting Reform Party" be palatable for their supporters and voters when the only policy would be to change the voting system and call an immediate follow on general election? Even on this straightforward platform it would stick in the claw for a lot of UKIP and Greens etc to work together. </p><p>Alternatively we can soldier on and head for probable defeat to the Tories in 2020. The landscape of the country could be utterly changed by 2025, with poverty at US levels and constitutional vandalism destroying voter turnout.</p><p>Labour could win on a rightwing platform. But I would expect the erosion of the combined Tory/Lab vote to continue, especially the more proportional European parliament elections, which are having a more profound effect than many people realise.</p><p>Also the media selling votes as a "retail offer" of selfish short term policies will always favour the rightwing parties. But if Labour gives in to this, it's roots of support will continue to wither away. </p><p>Labour deludes itself if it thinks multi party voters will melt away. A lot of these new voters for the smaller parties will never return to the main parties. Indeed, how can any future campaign deny the smaller parties participation in election debates, after the success of this election?</p><p>The left will not be kept out of government for ever. But when they do get their chance, they'd be best to embrace electoral reform.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-73142870851467067362015-05-11T17:27:00.001+01:002015-05-16T16:22:00.972+01:00People Want To Choose Local Candidates And Ensure A Party's Seats Match Its Voteshare<p>I think the solution to this problem is to have a hybrid voting system. Half of MPs elected in constituencies as now, half by a regional "open list" system where we vote for a regional candidate.</p><p>You walk into the polling station and you are ticked off the address book by the officials. You are given your constituency ballot paper with it's official stamp and you are directed into the private polling booth (as is the case now).</p><p>Now for the differences. You get two votes, one for your constituency MP and one for a new regional MP. </p><p>You place an X by your chosen constituency candidate and fold the paper. </p><p>Then you choose ONE of the regional ballot papers stacked in the polling booth for your regional vote.</p><p>They are all colour coded on the printed side with party colours or white for independent candidates.</p><p>You choose which ballot paper depending on which party or independent you want to vote for then place an X next to the candidate of your choice from that party or independent candidates.</p><p>You fold your regional ballot paper which is neutral black on the other side. Show your official stamp on the outside of your constituency ballot paper to the officials, receive your stamp for the outside of the regional ballot paper and you post both your folded ballot papers into the appropriate ballot boxes.</p><p>You will be voting for a constituency MP as you do now and a regional MP under an "open list" system.</p><p>The constituency MP will be elected as they are now, on a "first-past-the-post" basis in constituencies about twice the size. So 150,000 electors on average instead of 75,000 now. So for example, Brighton could be one constituency instead of being split into Pavilion and Kemptown. </p><p>As well as 15 constituency MPs in a region, there would be an equal number of regional MPs. So, there would be 15 regional MPs covering around 2.25m electors. About the size of Sussex and Kent combined. This would total nationally to 325 constituency MPs and 325 regional MPs. A total of 650 MPs, as we have now. </p><p>Each party could field up to 15 regional candidates for you to choose from (or you could choose an independent candidate). You vote for one candidate out of the list and the number of votes for each candidate determines the order of each party's regional allocation or the order of independent candidates.</p><p>These regional MPs would be shared out proportionately to each party or group of independents according to their total share of the region's votes.</p><p>So if for example Green candidates got 20% of the total regional and constituency vote combined in that region, they would get a total of at least 3 MPs. If they got less than 3 constituency MPs, their regional candidates with the most votes would make up the total to the 3 MPs required.</p><p>This would allow for a reasonably proportionate share of seats to votes for each party or independent. But crucially EVERY elected candidate would have been chosen by the voters.</p><p>For example, in Sussex and Kent under our present system, the Tories got 45% of the vote but 92% of the seats. </p><p>Under the new system, the Tories would still get 92% of the constituency seats on 45% of the vote, but that would only be 46% of the total seats. Because they would be unlikely to get many (if any) of the half of seats allocated regionally, as these would be allocated in proportion to parties' total voteshare.</p><p>The effective threshold would be about 6.5% for a party or independent to get one regional MP (100% divided by 15).</p><p>Parties might very likely decide not to put up as many as 15 candidates, though there is no disincentive to do this. It would make sense for a party to put up a wide range of candidates from all wings of the party to garner as many votes as possible. And this gives a voter a chance to influence party policy directly by voting not just for that party but the candidate they like from that party.</p><p>In our current system there is huge disproportionality between regions. Tories have very few constituency MPs in urban areas, the North, Scotland and Wales compared to their voteshare. They would likely win some regional MPs there to compensate them for this. Likewise Labour would win regional seats in rural and Southern England, also now in Scotland to compensate for the fact nearly all constituency MPs are Tory in the South and rural areas, and SNP in Scotland.</p><p>The smaller parties that are not so geographically concentrated, would do very well out of regional seats. As long as they can get over 6.5% of the vote in that region they can win a seat.</p><p>The result under our present system in the 2015 general election was, (rounded to 1 significant figure).</p><p>CON 37% vote, 51% seats<br>LAB 31% vote, 36% seats<br>SNP 5% vote, 9% seats<br>LDEM 7% vote, 1% seats<br>UKIP 12% vote, 0.2% of seats<br>GRN 4% vote, 0.2% seats<br>OTH 4% vote, 3% seats</p><p>As you can see, a fairly random and totally disproportionate and unfair result in terms of seats to votes. </p><p>With my suggestion of a hybrid "open list" system, the results on the same voteshares would look something like this. (note: I'd expect very different voteshares as there would be less need for tactical or protest votes).</p><p>CON 37% vote, 41% seats<br>LAB 31% vote, 34% seats<br>UKIP 12% vote, 10% seats<br>LDEM 7% vote, 4% seats<br>SNP 5% vote, 6% seats<br>GRN 4% vote, 2% seats<br>OTH 4% vote, 3% seats</p><p>Yes, I know this would very likely lead to a Tory/Ukip coalition government. But, that folks is democracy. </p><p>If over 49% voted for these parties, it is not unreasonable that they get around 50% of seats and into power. But I do believe that those UKIP voters that are on the left economically would quickly abandon Ukip once they saw them enacting their rightwing policies in a Tory led government. </p><p>Any new system takes time to bed in. For this reason, I think the first 3 general elections under this new system should be every 2 years before reverting to every 4 years. This should mean voters can get used to what they are voting for and any parties that are "conning" them (UKIP?) would be quickly removed.</p><p>As you can see, smaller parties all get seats much more in line with their voteshare. They get a few percent less seats if they fall below the 6.5% threshold in some regions, which means they win no regional MPs in that area.</p><p>Most of the Others total are Northern Ireland votes and seats and therefore regionally concentrated, so not falling below the threshold.</p><p>I hope you can clearly see how much fairer and democratic this system is. All the MPs are still voted for directly. Voters can feel more free to vote for candidates from parties they really support knowing their vote will count. </p><p>This system is similar to the hybrid systems used to elect the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, and also the German and New Zealand parliaments.</p><p>The difference is the "top up" regional candidates are "open list" and chosen by the voters and not by the party providing a "closed list" of ordered candidates elected due to party preferences. </p><p>This I feel deals with the criticism that regional MPs can "hide behind their party vote" and are not directly accountable. If a regional MP is unpopular, they can be directly punished by the voters. Voters can also do this without punishing the party they are from (if they so wish). Candidates will be less beholden to their party than now where 75% of seats are safe. </p><p>We will still have some safe seats in the constituency half of seats. And in these seats MPs will still be elected with "most" votes even if they get less than 50% of the vote. I would have introduced an AV element here but because this was rejected in a referendum and because I wanted the system to be simple I went for the well known X on the ballot. </p><p>So to sum up. I hope you can see that this system is both simple and fair. I've gone into detail describing the voting process, because I want to demonstrate its simplicity. </p><p>You put an X by your choice for constituency MP and an X for your choice for regional MP from your chosen party or independent candidates list.</p><p>The counting process is also easy. Most votes for a candidate in a constituency elects the constituency MP. </p><p>The regional MPs are elected proportionately. So if 30% of votes for candidates are from one party. 30% of their candidates in order of most votes are elected.</p><p>Other changes I'd like to see are the introduction of a small expenses allowance for turning out (say &#163;20) that recognises the costs involved in voting (both in terms of time and financial). </p><p>I would introduce photo ID at polling stations and go back to severely limiting postal ballots to safeguard against fraud. </p><p>I would introduce a "none of the above" on the ballot paper. If 50% voted for this option in the constituency ballot, then a person would be drawn at random from the local electoral register to become MP. In the regional ballot a proportionate amount of "jury" MPs to the "none of the above" vote would be chosen.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-21328330980296347622015-03-24T18:31:00.001+00:002015-03-25T20:28:27.660+00:00Analysis: Individual Electoral Registration Could Swing 16 Seats For The Tories<p>Individual Electoral Registration (IER) came into effect across the UK from July 2014. </p><p>IER places the onus on the individual to register to vote rather than by household registration as before. It also places new burdens on individuals to produce proof of ID. </p><p>Every year, electors will need to check to see if they have been removed from the electoral roll, or not added to it, and will need to re-register with NI number and date of birth. This particularly affects "attainers" - (those turning 18), students or anyone who changes address.</p><p>Proponents claim this will improve the accuracy of the register and reduce electoral fraud. It is also claimed that allowing one person to register the whole household is "old fashioned", "patronising" and raises security and privacy issues. </p><p>If this claim about accuracy was really true, it would be true in other areas too. Yet curiously no-one seems to be claiming they can improve the decennial household Census with an individual based one. Probably because they know that the claim is complete nonsense!</p><p>Anyone with experience of collecting data knows if you increase the data collection points, you increase the complexity, the chances of inaccuracy and the administrative costs. This was one of the reasons why the poll tax failed. Corresponding with every elector rather than by household increases all these problems by three or more fold.</p><p>As for the privacy and security issues of household voter registration. Living with someone per se is a privacy and security issue. People who live together have to share risks of fraud in far more lucrative areas for a fraudster than voter registration, such as their personal possessions, banking details, ID &amp; confidential mail etc. There is no real incentive for someone to fill in a household voter registration form inaccurately.</p><p>Also, if you opt people out of something and rely on them to opt back in, even when there are big incentives to opt in, default can be high. But we don't need theory to know IER will seriously deplete the electoral roll and votes cast. We have the experience in Northern Ireland where IER was rolled out in 2002. </p><p>From the 2001 general election to the 2005 general election, the number of votes cast in Northern Ireland fell by 13%. This was the first ever recorded fall for general elections in Northern Ireland and came despite votes cast across the rest of the UK increasing by 2% across those same elections.</p><p>The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee noted "the adverse impact that individual registration appears to have had on disadvantaged, marginalised and hard to reach groups, including young people and people with disabilities". The drop in turnout was "a cause for concern". </p><p>On the issue of voter impersonation fraud which IER is designed to address, the Electoral Commission noted that they had "received no evidence to suggest that this was an issue". </p><p>So, we had been warned about IER and also that voter impersonation fraud was not an issue.</p><p>Yet, voter impersonation fraud is still used as an excuse to defend IER. On this, I quote the words of one investigator into voter impersonation in the US "voter impersonation is rarer than being struck by lightning". </p><p>As we know, to have an effect on the result, fraud has to be widespread. This is impossible by voter impersonation without being pretty obvious. </p><p>Yet the one area where widespread fraud could be an issue is postal ballots. The most likely electoral fraudsters are the candidates who could collect postal ballots and forge signatures or alter votes. (Rather than mythical hordes impersonating voters at polling stations, which would be easy to spot). Curiously this is something the government haven't addressed despite real evidence that postal ballot fraud is a problem. In fact they have made postal ballot fraud more possible by allowing postal ballots for every voter, rather than just those voters who have difficulty voting in person.</p><p>At best, IER is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. And it probably misses the nut too!</p><p>For me, it is clear that the introduction of IER has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing electoral fraud. </p><p>I knew that IER would help the Tories electorally. But my analysis tells me the effects could be more immediate and shocking than I thought!</p><p>My focus has been on the distortion of the electoral roll, which will affect the drawing of constituency boundaries in 2018. Boundaries are drawn on registered voters not those eligible to vote. Because of this, IER is likely to increase the number of rural seats and decrease the number of urban seats. This is because registration has fallen more in poorer urban seats. The Tories do better in the more wealthier rural seats. </p><p>My analysis of Northern Ireland IER shows a huge drop in votes cast and not just the electoral roll numbers.</p><p>Due to the unique politics of Northern Ireland we can also see clearly the divide between how IER has impacted differently on nationalist and unionist turnout. A 14% drop in the nationalist vote compared to just 10% drop in the unionist vote. The nationalist community tend to be poorer and more marginalised.</p><p>We know that poorer people are more likely to rent rather than own property. And renters are more likely to move more often and consequently be taken off the electoral roll by IER. We also know renters are more likely to support left of centre parties in the UK. </p><p>If these figures are transposed to the UK, it could mean a 0.6% gain for the Tories over Labour nationally and probably higher in marginal and Labour held seats. Around 16 seats have less than a 0.6% majority. The number of votes cast nationally could drop by over 3m and this despite population growth of 2m since 2010. Turnout last time was just under 30m votes. This is the figure to watch. </p><p>In Brighton and Hove, a drop in turnout will hit the Greens hardest. Particularly the young and students falling off the register. Especially since the scandalous and completely indefensible decision to end the block registering of students in halls of residence that Universities automatically carried out previously.</p><p>Council leader Jason Kitcat and Brighton and Hove council are doing their best to encourage registration with a widespread advertising campaign, but they are fighting against a flawed system.</p><p>Voting should be an automatic right, not something you're made to jump through hoops to get. </p><p>Votes cast could fall by as many as 20,000 across the City. A drop of 7,000 in Brighton Pavilion alone, more than half of those potential Green supporters. </p><p>Since Caroline Lucas's majority is just 1,600 votes, they should be very worried by this. With Hove and Kemptown also marginals with small majorities between Tory and Labour, all 3 seats here could be affected by IER.</p><p>The Tories knew exactly what they were doing introducing IER. Together with 5 year fixed terms and boundary enlargements passed for 2018, this is another measure that has eroded democracy and accountability. Shocking that the Lib Dems have also supported these measures.</p><p>These measures bring us closer to seat majorities "won" on 29% of the vote, as envisioned recently by Lord Ashcroft. </p><p>Also, these measures coupled with the rise of the SNP and UKIP, Labour might need a substantial lead in votes to gain the same seats as the Tories. Inverting the situation of 2005 and 2010, so bemoaned by the Tories. Food for thought to those short sighted tribal Labourites so pleased with first-past-the-post.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-21755872474088938962015-02-21T20:09:00.001+00:002015-02-23T08:37:17.266+00:00My Predictions For The Brighton & Hove Council Elections 2015<p>In 2011, I underestimated how many seats the Greens would gain. In particular I didn't foresee the Green gains from the Tories in Withdean and Central Hove. </p><p>I also underestimated how badly the Tories would do. They lost 8 seats when I thought they might only lose 3. And May 2011 was not a bad time nationally for the Tories. They were riding high with decent poll leads over Labour and the coalition was in a honeymoon period (difficult to imagine this, I know). </p><p>There are some strange demographics going on in Brighton and Hove. There is a huge churn of voters in the central wards. As much as 50% turnover in some wards where there are some of the highest number of renters in the country. This is bringing a younger, more cosmopolitan sort of voter that doesn't particular favour the Tories. I expect this has continued since 2011. For these reasons I expect the Tory vote to drop overall (assuming the new registration rules haven't decimated the electoral roll). </p><p>I also think 2011 might have seen a temporary high water mark for the Green vote. The voter churn I have mentioned is a huge help to the Greens but locally they have had many difficulties running a minority administration. So first a necessary diversion.</p><p>The big turning point was the Cityclean bin strike in 2013. I wrote about this at the time and I don't want to go into too much detail again. But just to say, that although I will be voting Green, I have realised the Greens will not be as radical as I want them to be. The Greens will comfort themselves that the dispute was about "equal pay", but as I wrote at the time, that may have been the intention of the national legislation, but there are also some perverse side effects. </p><p>In this case it meant that the lowest scales of pay had to also have the lowest allowances for weekend and anti-social hours. This meant that those on higher pay would see increases while some of the lowest paid faced cuts. "Delineating pay differentials" was how I phrased it at the time.</p><p>The Equality Act and "single status" agreement between local authorities and unions requires an assessment to be made to align pay of "similar jobs" within an organisation. But the indirect effect of this is to set differentials between each scale. </p><p>The problem was, the lower scaled Cityclean jobs did not have the lowest allowances. Either higher grades had to see increased allowances or the lower scales had to see allowances cut to be "proportional" to their basic pay. Increasing higher scale allowances was deemed too expensive, so that left cuts to lower scale allowances as the "obvious" option.</p><p>Jason Kitcat could see no way around this "legal imperative". Caroline Lucas instinctively knew cutting low pay was wrong, whatever the reason and joined workers on the picket line.</p><p>The alternative radical solution, to cap top pay at say &#163;50,000 p.a. and use the proceeds to raise pay across the board at all other grades was too radical even for the Greens. It was surreal to see some Green councillors justifying gigantic salaries of &#163;80,000-&#163;150,000 on the grounds that they had to pay the "market rate" to get the "right" people. They didn't get my argument that perhaps people who demanded such huge salaries weren't "right" for public service anyway. The shrugged councillor shoulders brought the image of the pigs from animal farm into view.</p><p>The damaged morale of workers at Cityclean has led to a deterioration of the service and further disputes. The public just see a poorer service and not the mitigating circumstances (excuses) of a nationally imposed Equality Act, 20 year PFI contracts signed by previous administrations and the current 55% cuts in government central grants. The Greens have seen their brand damaged. </p><p>Back in 2011, the Greens had very wide appeal. They could appeal across the political spectrum. But the surburban residents who drive into the city centre were never going to be impressed by the 20mph zones, bus &amp; cycle lanes and higher parking charges. Coupled with the desperately overdue regeneration of many road junctions caused by a previous 30 years of neglect. </p><p>Put all the inevitable road delays and Cityclean problems together and a narrative of Green chaos has been created. Nevermind the overdue improvements to some of the most neglected parts of town, the regenerated parks, roads and markets.</p><p>Central city residents mostly welcome the reduction of speeding cars, increased cycling and more pedestrian friendly environments.</p><p>Personally I would have liked to see much more of this, but of course we have to remember the Greens are a minority administration who need Labour or Tory support for these nationally funded schemes.</p><p>Nobody could say the Greens have entered council politics in auspicious times. Considering the challenges of the budget cuts, the Greens have managed services incredibly efficiently and managed to attract national grants for parks and roads on an unprecedented basis.</p><p>But back to the point of this post.</p><p>My gut feeling this time is that Labour are going to do well in 2015. I expect Labour to retake the parliamentary seats in Hove and also Kemptown (although the excellent Nancy Platts will need a few Greens to lend her their votes to triumph). Caroline Lucas should hold on in Pavilion but not by the sort of margin suggested as possible by the 2011 council results. </p><p>The evidence we have to go on are recent Lord Ashcroft polls in Pavilion, Hove and Kemptown, a citywide Euro result and a couple of byelections in Westbourne and Hanover/Elm Grove wards.</p><p>The Ashcroft polls in Pavilion shows Lucas 7 points up on 2010 but around 8 points down on the 2011 Green results. There is similar movement in Hove and Kemptown. Greens down, Labour up a couple of points and the Tories a point down.&#160;We can project these results across the council as follows.</p><p>First the "clean sweep" wards. </p><p>For the Greens I expect them to hold St Peters &amp; North Laine, Regency, Brunswick &amp; Adelaide, and to retake the lost seat to Labour in Hanover &amp; Elm Grove.</p><p>For the Tories, Hove Park, Woodingdean, Rottingdean Coastal, Patcham and Westbourne will be held. With them regaining seats from the Greens in Withdean and Central Hove. </p><p>Labour will hold in North and South Portslade wards and East Brighton. And retake seats in Hollingdean &amp; Stanmer from the Greens &amp; Independent. They will gain a seat from the Tories in Wish and see off the Ukip defector in Moulsecomb &amp; Bevendean. </p><p>Now to the "split wards".</p><p>Labour will gain a seat from the Tories in Hangleton &amp; Knoll giving them a 2 to 1 split. </p><p>Labour will gain 2 seats in Queens Park, so a 2-1 over the Greens. And Labour will also gain a seat each in Preston Park &amp; Goldsmid, leaving them trailing the Greens 2-1 in each of those wards. </p><p>Overall I predict the following totals (with changes from current position).</p><p>LAB 21 (+8) CON 18(-) GRN 15 (-5) </p><p>I expect the independents and Ukip defector to all lose their seats.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-87562976018256460472015-01-29T11:05:00.001+00:002015-01-29T18:27:08.010+00:00A Green Citizen's Income.<p>There has been criticism of the Green proposals for a Citizen Income (CI). How will it be funded? Does it really help the poorest?</p><p>It's actually all very simple. What's complicated is the costly and inefficient welfare system it replaces.</p><p>The Green proposals are to implement a &#163;72 a week payment to all adult citizens, and a lesser amount to children. </p><p>There have been claims (notably by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics) that this will "cost" &#163;280bn per year.</p><p>So first a quick sum. &#163;72 x 52 weeks x 50m [adult population] equals &#163;187bn</p><p>This is the approximate yearly amount of the adult part of the payment. </p><p>Then we have to deduct &#163;72 x 11m (=&#163;41bn). These are the pensioners already receiving more than the CI sum in state pension and pensioner credit. That leaves &#163;146bn to find.</p><p>The children's part of a CI depends on the amount it is set at. But we already have a childrens Citizen's Income in Child Benefit (or we did before the coalition started to means test it). If we imagine the child rate is set at half the adult CI rate (&#163;36 a week), that would cost approximately &#163;12bn more than child benefit does currently. So that makes a total of &#163;158bn for our CI.</p><p>A lot of money for sure, but well below Neil's inflated sum of &#163;280bn.</p><p>So where is this &#163;158bn coming from?</p><p>Actually Andrew Neil answered his own question. </p><p>The scrapping of the personal tax allowances alone raises around &#163;100bn. </p><p>The Green plan is to merge the regressive National Insurance with Income tax to have more honest, progressive and transparent taxes on income. The richest do not pay the bulk of National Insurance, whose burden falls largely on low to middle income earners. The untaxed "rentier" income from capital and the scrapping of the NI ceiling for those earning over &#163;42,000pa would raise many tens of billions more. Lets say &#163;20bn for a conservative estimate. That leaves &#163;38bn left to find for our CI.</p><p>To administrate our current &#163;160bn welfare bill costs about &#163;20bn a year. The current army of bureaucrats and means testers uses up over 10% of our welfare budget. To administrate the universal child benefit was 1%. 1% is the sort of figure needed to administrate a universal CI. So once again savings of tens of billions off the welfare it replaces.</p><p>A CI replaces completely jobseekers allowance (&#163;3bn to 6bn) and Income Support (&#163;4bn to &#163;8bn) (depending on levels of unemployment).</p><p>So we are now down to between &#163;4bn to &#163;11bn left to find. </p><p>The Greens are proposing a 1% wealth tax on over &#163;3m of assets. which they estimate will raise &#163;40bn. Andrew Neil disputed this figure, citing the lower threshold (&#163;800k) French wealth tax that only raises &#163;4bn a year. I suppose it all depends on how forcefully such a tax is implemented and how much is allowed to be avoided through capital flight. </p><p>Finally, a Citizen's Income would replace the impossibly complex system of tax credits. Around 7 million households are entitled to Working Tax credits and Child Tax credits. Around 5 million claim them costing around &#163;30bn-&#163;35bn a year (Note: this brings the total raised to more than needed for the proposed CI). </p><p>Critics use tax credits to point out that a CI could actually penalise some lower earners currently claiming these credits. Though the higher than child benefit rate I propose for the children's CI would probably make sure families with children are always better off. </p><p>I think that the huge change in the personal allowance in the last few years from &#163;6,500 to &#163;10,500 has made calculating a more progressive level of CI more difficult. Coupled with the replacement of the tax credits system, it might mean that a more generous CI would need to be implemented than the one proposed by the Greens to ensure that absolutely every low earner is better off. This could be clawed back through higher rates of income taxes on higher earners. </p><p>But the impact of a CI remains sound. </p><p>A payment of &#163;3,744pa is better than tax allowances that saves you less (approx. &#163;3,000pa). Only the higher tax rate payers should lose out with higher rates when NI is merged with Income Tax. </p><p>And the real impact is on the financial incentive to work. </p><p>Tell the unemployed you can earn money AND keep your &#163;72 a week payment and the financial incentive to work has been dramatically improved. </p><p>Green leader Natalie Bennett did the Citizen's Income a disservice with her poor level of detailed knowledge of this policy. She needs to do her homework and be much sharper in future interviews and debates.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-32838582372012715082015-01-15T10:28:00.001+00:002015-01-15T10:49:31.354+00:00I've Seen The Future Of Low Public Spending... 11,000 Miles Away.<p>Unaffordable housing, dire public transport, crumbling roads and infrastructure, scandalous road deaths, rising crime, desperate rising inequality and a dearth of decent paying jobs. The UK? How about New Zealand!</p><p>Perhaps not the image you might think of about the land of the Hobbit and the Maori. Of course New Zealand has wondrous abundant countryside and is well worth a visit (if you don't mind lots of driving). But for a country with an abundance of natural wealth, it isn't half in a mess. </p><p>Add in unaffordable healthcosts and dire TV and radio to the above list and you might understand why so many New Zealanders emigrate. </p><p>If you want a vision of life without the BBC, spend an evening watching (or rather enduring) New Zealand TV.</p><p>No homespun dramas, just endless imports, repeats, derivative programming and incessant adverts littering every programme, making them unwatchable. I started watching a film at 9pm, by midnight I had given up getting to the end of the movie after literally dozens of very long advertising breaks. I was then told that New Zealanders NEVER watch anything live, preferring to spend their time zapping adverts every few minutes on their timeshifted shows.</p><p>If you'd like the idea of a bonfire of regulations, you will love New Zealand. Where land developers are free to destroy beautiful countryside at will (while brownfield sites are left to decay), to throw up dilapadated tin houses with no insulation, that even in New Zealand's mild climate will leave you shivering. Where drink driving will result in only a slap on the wrist fine and result not surprisingly in the most dangerous roads in the Western world. To get too old or sick to drive is really to experience loneliness for most New Zealanders. Trapped in isolated towns with no resources for health (or much else).</p><p>So there you have the free market in all its glory and all its excuses laid bare. There are no planning restrictions holding developers back from building homes in New Zealand. And in a country bigger than the UK with just a 4.4m population, there is masses of space. Yet still they don't build. Why? Because big developers control the market like in the UK and by carefully restricting supply drive up property and land prices, especially in the crowded cities. Hence bigger profits, and that is the bottom line of market economics. It is not run for the masses, or even for efficiency. It is to make profits for the few. Proper regulation is needed to ensure competition diminishes profiteering. And a thriving private sector needs the public sector to provide opportunities and infrastructure support. </p><p>Go to New Zealand and drive (or should I say bounce) on their many "unsealed" roads, i.e. rubble tracks that are untarmac-ed. Go to their historic "spiritual" sites, if you can afford the theme park prices and stomach the theme park mentality. And woe betide if you can't drive. They don't even spend money on bridges or tunnels for their trains, preferring to run them through traffic islands. Not as if it matters when they run so infrequently for passengers, they are next to useless. They will never be able to expand public transport precluded by this lack of foresight. When New Zealand's population does grow big, as it will, they have laid the foundations for a living hell for future generations. </p><p>It is all such a shame, such a beautiful country, and through mean public infrastructure and reckless irresponsibility they are in a rush to despoil it. </p><p>I've seen the future for the UK if we keep heading in the same direction. The Tory road leads to New Zealand, but without the countryside.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-38358456567364635932015-01-06T00:01:00.001+00:002015-01-06T00:32:24.512+00:00Can We Define Cameronism?<p>As, hopefully, David Cameron's reign as PM hits it's final furlong. I'd like to look deep into it's murky backwaters. I'd like to find the defining ideology of the man, and his schizophrenic government. Not just in terms of two parties in coalition, but of the conflicting ideologies of the man himself.</p><p>When the Labour party ran their shortlived and underplayed party political broadcast of a cartoon Cameron chameleon morphing from one political theme to the next, they were closer than they realised to nailing his defining characteristics. And to be fair to Cameron, they are not all bad. His apologies for Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough did seem genuinely heartfelt. </p><p>The most surprising attitude of his government has been their attitude to foreign aid and gay marriage. To have a Conservative government support these issues, in the face of much severe criticism from it's own MPs and media, is a bigger victory for the Left than probably they dare realise. It is also difficult to fathom. </p><p>I really can't make my mind up whether Cameron is a real convert to these causes or is trying to play some sort of modernist card to win the liberal urban middle class vote that the Tories have sorely missed since their post Thatcher collapse.</p><p>I actually suspect his conversion is real, but it doesn't square with his support for Section 28 (as recently as 2001) and his opposition to gay adoption. </p><p>Ditto, foreign aid. Did he find some damiscene conversion in being a 80's child of the Live Aid era? Seems as unlikely as his claim to be a Smiths fan. </p><p>Look at how easily Cameron has jettisoned his now almost unrememberable softly softly approach to immigration and Europe. His seemingly real understanding of the stupidity of punitive drug laws. His infamous, now laughable claim of "vote blue, go green". He even went as far as quoting "the spirit level" when claiming to want to reduce inequality. A claim never to be heard again from the man who put IDS in charge of welfare.</p><p>Then we look at the economic agenda and attitude to the public sector. More Thatcherite than even Thatcher. The relentless drive to push private sector profiteering deep into public provision. Cutting tax on Capital even further, even amid an economic depression and promise to reduce government debt. </p><p>Although he has given up on two dog whistle issues - gays and foreign aid, he has relentlessly pushed others. He has been outflanked on immigration and Europe because he could never out UKIP UKIP. But the attacks on the unemployed, disabled and even public sector workers have been relentless in their ferocity. Here we see Thatcher's child in his full glory. </p><p>Another curious aspect is his hot and cold attitude to religion. Once describing his religiosity as "like Magic FM in the Chilterns" - "it comes and goes". Then months later he is praying in Church like a US president at his most eager. </p><p>It is really difficult to pin down what is sincere about Cameron. But as attributed to Tony Blair, if you can fake sincerity, you have it made. <br>Cameron seemed to start out a liberal but become more hardcore Thatcherite once in power. His journey rightwards seems to continue to this day, with no sight of where it would end. For those of us who are true liberals, lets hope it ends on May 7th!</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-52672949890298752512015-01-03T07:27:00.001+00:002015-01-03T09:42:41.851+00:00The 2010 and 2015 General Elections Will Dispel A Lot Of Untruths About Coalition Government<p>In 2015 we are likely to get a second consecutive hung parliament. And without radical and controversial boundary changes, that are due to come in in 2018, we could get a third or even more. </p><p>We were told by proponents of our current voting system that this could only happen under proportional systems. </p><p>We were also told that coalition government was unstable and couldn't be long lasting or provide "strong" or radical government. </p><p>As we near the end of five years of one of the most radical governments ever, we find other myths about coalition are dismissed too. </p><p>We were told coalition would mean perpetual Lib Dems in government, though that seems unlikely after 2015 with the most likely coalition a Labour/ SNP one. </p><p>The only claim left is that coalition can be unpopular and divisive. Yes, as unpopular and divisive as the Thatcher governments were. But I suspect that has more to do with our politics being bought by big business. </p><p>The truth is, our voting system is the straitjacket imposed on voters to maintain the two party duopoly. But thankfully this is breaking down. Lots of voters are scared into voting for the big two parties because their fear of one is greater than their distaste of the other. The spoiler effect and disproportionality are the big parties' friends.</p><p>As the combined vote of the big two plummets towards 60%, the system still delivers them 85%-90% of the seats. The coming boundaries could make this worse. But people want more choice. They want political parties that listen to their members not big donors. If voters keep voting for newer more radical parties and the combined vote of the big two drops below 50%. Could they still resist voting reform? They would certainly try. </p><p>Voters accepted 35% of the vote delivering a majority. Would they accept 29%? </p><p>But more than the percentage of vote for the "winning party" or the "turnout" percentage. The numbers we need to watch to determine the health of our democracy are the total number of registered voters compared to the voting age population, and the total votes a "winning" party gets. So 35% of the vote in the future, could be far less than 35% of the vote is now.</p><p>Even when the voting age population was 10m smaller, Thatcher, Major and 1997 Blair were getting seat majorities with 13m to 14m voters. By 2005, Blair got a majority with less than 11m. Cameron nearly got a majority with 10.7m. </p><p>With the new harder registration rules already "disappearing" millions off the register, with millions more predicted to go by 2020, this "winning majority" of voters could drop dramatically. </p><p>Registration numbers are failing to keep pace with voting age population growth. </p><p>In the 1950s, a 50m population had 40m on the electoral roll. Today's 65m population has around 45m on the roll. 3.5m eligible voters are estimated as unregistered and this could grow to 10m with the new rules.</p><p>Another issue to watch is the disparity between voter roll numbers for local and European elections, that includes all EU citizens resident in the UK and Westminster elections that don't. </p><p>Migration is an established fact and as the number disenfranchised in this way grows across Europe from around 5% of voting age towards 10% and beyond, it will become more and more unacceptable. As an already vulnerable group, this disenfranchisement will encourage political parties to treat them even more unfairly and will distort our politics. </p><p>All of this is relevant to coalition government because coalitions tend to increase the number of votes required to win a majority of seats. Under a proportional system, coalitions need even more voters to rule. Obviously this is more democratic. </p><p>Be very suspicious of those who argue in favour of a system that allocates power to parties on a smaller and smaller number of votes.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-85179566729009833382015-01-03T00:30:00.001+00:002015-01-03T00:46:55.987+00:00How Easy Would It Be For Labour & The SNP To Do A Deal?<p>With the same boundaries as 2010 and a multitude of amateur psephologists on the internet, this May general election is looking like being the most analysed ever. </p><p>If most analysts are right we are heading for a very messy hung parliament with maybe 3 or 4 party co-operation needed to garner a majority. </p><p>Both Labour and the Tories could end up between 265 and 290 seats. With the Lib Dems likely to be reduced to twenty something seats, this would mean the big two having to look elsewhere to make up a majority. </p><p>Tories have been sounding out the Ulster Unionists and would make an offer to the SNP, though it would be political suicide for the SNP to accept. </p><p>UKIP are more obvious Tory supporters, but that would make a Tory/Lib Dem deal more difficult and the Tories are likely to need 3 or more parties to make a majority. There has even been one wild suggestion in the national press of a "grand coalition" of Labour and Tory. </p><p>But realistically, for me, the most obvious partnership would be Labour and the SNP. </p><p>The most likely scenario is a minority government with "confidence and supply" forthcoming from other agreeable parties. </p><p>Even with the fixed term parliament Act, the chances of this arrangement lasting anywhere near 5 years seems very slim to me. </p><p>As is tradition, the sitting PM, in this case David Cameron, will get the first chance to form a coalition, even if his party are not the largest in seats or votes. Obviously whichever party manages that will theoretically have the moral upper hand, though in practise it will make little difference. </p><p>If Cameron fails, the scene will be set for Labour and the SNP. The SNP will almost certainly be the third largest party in parliament. Unless something really dramatic happens to dent their huge lead over Labour in Scotland.</p><p>Labour are going to have to swallow their pride to make a deal with the SNP. </p><p>I don't see Miliband having a problem dealing with the SNP, but a lot of his backbenchers and cabinet colleagues will be seething.</p><p>Thankfully the most rightwing Labour MPs are in Scotland and most of those would have lost their seats in the bloodbath north of the border. Labour could easily find they have Scottish MPs down in the single figures.</p><p>The SNP say they want Trident out of Scotland and will push for more tax powers. </p><p>When it comes to nuclear power, Labour are still a very conservative party. This would be a difficult area for them to compromise on. </p><p>On tax powers, the Labour party were the ones dragging their feet even more than the Tories and Lib Dems in the recent Smith deal. </p><p>So, what would the SNP do if Labour refused to budge? </p><p>The SNP options would be limited. Labour would love to drive them into the Tories hands. Sadly I can see Labour being so bloody minded they were willing to see Cameron continue. </p><p>The big question is Miliband. I have hopes he would find a compromise. And his reluctant colleagues could be used to drive a hard bargain. The SNP would need something big though. </p><p>Miliband would do well to bind the SNP close and go for a long lasting deal, maybe even a coalition. </p><p>The Tories and UKIP are overflowing with hedge fund money and would love a second general election in October 2015 to bankrupt Labour and the other parties. </p><p>It is going to be difficult for Labour to accept the SNP, but the alternatives for Miliband would be resignation. The knives would quickly be out to get a blairite like Umunna installed. </p><p>Miliband is going to have to lay the law down with the rebels in his own party and accept real devolution to Scotland. And if he has any sense he will roll this devolution out to the rest of the UK as well, including the English regions.</p><p>So the answer to the question is, it isn't going to be easy to get a SNP backed Labour government. They fight each other as bitter rivals in Scotland and that sort of tribalism is hard to overcome (see Labour and the Greens in Brighton). </p><p>But the disappearance of Scottish Labour MPs as a large block in the parliamentary party and the pragmatism of Miliband and Sturgeon gives me real hope it will happen. </p><p>The consequences of letting Cameron and co continue on their wrecking mission would be unforgiveable. To keep Scotland, Labour will have to make a deal work. It could work to all social democrats advantage.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-29927758610117192912015-01-02T15:45:00.001+00:002015-01-02T23:17:25.559+00:00Revised Predictions for 2015 General Election<p>In May last year, I had a stab at predicting how many seats each party would win in the coming general election. </p><p>The unforeseen (by me) rise of the SNP in Scotland has completely thrown out my predictions. </p><p>I also accept that my broad brush approach to universal swings was too rough an instrument as perhaps universal swings are too generous to Labour. Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling gives some more pointers as to what is happening in the marginals.</p><p>I gave predictions for scenarios ranging from a 6 point Tory lead to a 6 point Labour lead. The current Labour 2 point lead suggested a 40 seat overall majority for them (LAB 345 CON 245). A tad optimistic for Labour perhaps. </p><p>I rounded each party to a nearest 5 seat total and worked on the assumption of a combined "others" of 60 seats (Lib Dems with 25 of those). With Labour and Tory combined splitting 590 seats between them. </p><p>Now we are closer to the election, I think I can narrow that down and also incorporate more data from spread betting predictions, which tend to overestimate the Tories and underestimate Labour. In 2010 betting predicted the Tories getting 13 more seats than they actually got and Labour 40 less. </p><p>Bearing all of this in mind, my predictions are now as follows (with net change from 2010 result);</p><p>Using the current polling of Labour with a 2 point lead over the Tories in the UK but 17 points behind the SNP in Scotland.</p><p>LAB 279 (+21)<br>CON 269 (-37)<br>SNP 47 (+41)<br>LDEM 25 (-32)<br>DUP 8 (-)<br>UKIP 6 (+6)<br>SF 5 (-)<br>PC 4 (+1)<br>SDLP 3 (-)<br>GRN 1 (-)<br>RES 1 (-)<br>AP 1 (-)<br>OTH 1 (-)</p><p>Behind these figures, I have predicted Labour losing 33 seats to the SNP. The Lib Dems losing 13 seats to the Tories, 10 to Labour, 8 to the SNP and 1 to Plaid Cymru. And the Tories losing 44 seats to Labour and 6 to UKIP.</p><p>Assuming Sinn Fein with their 5 seats continue to not take up their seats, then 321 is needed for a majority. </p><p>I predict a Labour minority government with the SNP, SDLP, Plaid Cymru and Green providing confidence and supply (a total of 334 seats, a majority of 26 excluding Sinn Fein). Obviously this would be a very precarious arrangement unlikely to last anywhere near 5 years.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-15769301709734845952014-12-28T11:41:00.001+00:002014-12-28T21:16:08.453+00:00Democrats Need To Make The Most Of 2015. It Will Be The Last Hung Parliament For A Generation.<p>In the 2010 general election campaign, the Lib Dems campaigned against austerity and tuition fees, but they also campaigned for more democracy.</p><p>Sadly on all these issues they have done the opposite in government.</p><p>Those of us hoping for constitutional improvements have been shocked. </p><p>This 2015 election could be the last chance for smaller parties to have a say. All of the following issues will make it harder to challenge the status quo of the big two parties.</p><p>As a democrat, the last thing we needed was bigger constituencies, yet from 2018 we will get them as seat numbers fall from 650 to 600.</p><p>Radical boundary changes will also take place as strict rules on registered numbers will cut across communities. Seats will become even more arbitrary, and volatile too, as changes are made every five years. The idea of an MP representing a community will be turned into farce, as voters find they are moved from seat to seat and unable to re-elect or vote out their MP. </p><p>Individual registration will affect everyone from 2016 and make it harder to register, the mobile poor, urban and/or students are already falling off the register in their millions. This matters, as boundaries are drawn by registered numbers not those eligible. Rural seats will become smaller and more powerful and urban seats will swell in constituent size with more voters disenfranchised.</p><p>One of the biggest myths of our voting system is that urban seats are smaller than rural, they are not. In terms of both population and eligible electors they are already bigger than rural seats. Only because of lower registration and turnout do they appear smaller. And this matters because this is the criteria used. By tightening this criteria the coalition will disenfranchise urban voters even more. </p><p>Then there are 5 year parliaments. Another regressive measure removing power from voters by prolonging the length of time between elections. As 2015 will probably show, it is even ineffective at that. Elections can still happen at any time.</p><p>And finally we hear that the Tories in the last few months have quietly slipped into law a massive increase in party spending limits while a gagging law prevents charities and trade unions from campaigning. </p><p>All of this has happened with the Lib Dems consent. Truly shocking. What are they thinking?</p><p>The Tories rely on the national media and local press and leaflet campaigning that without volunteers is expensive. All of these new laws will help the Tories and disadvantage other parties who use volunteers to build support in an area over decades. Disruptive seat boundaries favour bigger parties with national backing. The 2015 parliament could be the last chance to halt these undemocratic practises. Yet no party seems to be talking about it.</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-2600523177307023232014-10-09T23:01:00.001+01:002014-10-10T11:03:16.576+01:00UK Democracy Has Failed<p>1. A constituency MP is accountable.</p><p>2. Single party government is decisive.</p><p>3. One person, one vote, it must be fair. </p><p>4. The candidate with the most votes wins, this is a simple system.</p><p>5. Our hereditary and unelected Lords are best at scrutinising our elected chamber.</p><p>All of the above are used to defend our present system. All are false.</p><p>1. Most constituents do not vote for their MP or even know their name. Yet 70% to 85% of seats do not change hands.</p><p>2. Our governments are slower at making decisions than those abroad and less likely to think long term. </p><p>3. The value of your vote is determined by constituency boundaries. </p><p>4. The link between total seats won and total votes cast is unfathomably complex for Westminster and local elections. </p><p>5. Amongst developed states only the UK has hereditary and unelected law makers.</p><p>All of this is beyond debate. These are undeniable facts.</p><p>The question is, what to do about it?</p><p>For a political animal like me, the triumph of UKIP on the back of what is obvious voter frustration at how our system works is very depressing.</p><p>Sadly, any party achieving power under the present system is unlikely to change the system. But worse, by the time they achieve power, the system will have moulded that party to its image. Real change seems hopelessly out of reach. </p><p>The failure of our political system can be summed up by two words - the lack of; </p><p>1. Representation</p><p>2. Information</p><p>1. You can increase representation by increasing the proportionality of results, so seats won more accurately reflects voteshare. You can also increase the frequency of elections and decrease constituency size to improve accountability. But in my opinion, good though these measures would be, it would not be enough. </p><p>Our current system is getting worse partly because the proportion of the electorate needed to win power is decreasing as our voting system fails to cope with votes dispersing among multiple parties. It is now possible to win power with less than 20% support amongst the electorate. But even the most proportional systems can deliver&#160; power with less than 40% electorate support. Better, but still not a majority. And everywhere this figure is falling. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the process of voting itself.</p><p>The problem is that voting is a crude process that does not come close to capturing the opinions and views of voters. </p><p>2. The second problem is lack of information. It is pretty near impossible to get detailed and impartial information on candidates and party policies. We could improve the quality and range of information available to people by diversifying the ownership of our media. This would mean more opinions reflected and views more in line with the public mood. This would help, but once again in my opinion, it would not be enough. </p><p>People haven't the time to become experts on the main topics and no-one can be expert on everything and every candidate. </p><p>The other linked problem is that our political parties, candidates and media can be easily bought by the rich and powerful. We could have rules on donations and the dispersion of propaganda but how practical would this be and how long would these rules last? </p><p>Also the bigger problem is those people who need democracy the most are always the least likely to have the time or energy to participate. The poorest are not properly represented in political parties and certainly not in parliament. This will always be the case. And the longer this goes on, the more it alienates the poor from the system and the more likely they are to disengage. </p><p>What we need is a system that allows a truly representative sample of the population equal access to a diverse range of expert opinion, the time to deliberate, and the power to implement their collective decisions.</p><p>Thankfully we already have such a system - the jury service. We should extend this to selecting our government.</p><p>It is not perfect, but most of the objections are unfounded. People can make very informed decisions on the most complex situations.</p><p>Replacing our elected representatives with randomly selected representatives will deliver a much harder system for the powerful to corrupt. It would take the money out of politics and ensure proper representation of everyone. </p><p>We could experiment with term limits, a mix of elected and randomly selected. But ultimately I feel our system has gone so badly wrong that this might be the only way to put things right.</p><p>The numbers of "jury politicians" selected would have to be big enough samples to be representative. I suggest 500 in the Commons and 500 in the Lords.</p><p>This idea could take a long time to gain favour. But don't dismiss it, really think about it. Then think about where we are heading with our current elected alternatives. Which would you prefer?</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-84127788833451300442014-09-19T16:22:00.001+01:002014-09-19T16:51:08.562+01:00The elephant in the room is proportional representation.<p>Westminster politicians rarely look worried. Why would they when 70% have got jobs for life as long as they keep their party happy. They are effectively immune from public opinion.</p><p>Since the universal franchise, only around 15% of seats on average change hands at an election, and never more than 30%. </p><p>70% of MPs have more to fear from boundary changes than voters.</p><p>Local government is increasingly about entrenched one party states in many areas. Not that that matters much with power so sucked into Westminster.</p><p>We are the most centralised state in Europe, with stagnant local government and undemocratic parties. </p><p>At every level there has been centralisation of power. </p><p>Our parties have taken power from their membership and handed it to their leaders. </p><p>Westminster are constantly eroding power from local government. </p><p>And turnout is so low in local elections that parties only have to address a dwindling minority to stay in power.</p><p>So, when something happens that makes Westminster worried, it is a revelation. The Scottish referendum was such a moment. A real decision concerning power in the hands of voters. And the unprecedented 85% turnout shows how much that makes a difference.</p><p>The problem for our political elite is democracy is a messy unpredictable business. It provides easy targets for our 24 hour media. But when policy making is slow and bland, it destroys hope and passion. <br>The Labour party in particular, now have a big problem. The Tories have their own ready made solution to devolution. They propose giving the Scots control of a few more percent of their own taxes and then to exclude Scottish MPs from Westminster. So the Scots remain slaves and Labour lose their Scottish MPs as well. Lose, lose for everyone except the Tories.</p><p>Because Labour tried to fob the regions off with feeble powers last time, nobody now trusts regional government in England. But without it we have a lopsided union. How can we devolve powers to Scotland and Wales without devolving to the English regions?</p><p>Answer is, to do that will cause justifiable resentment and present the Tories with a stick to hit Labour with. </p><p>But the Tories "English laws for English MPs" is equally unfair and so would be an English parliament. (And impractical, because spending decisions in England automatically affect Scotland and Wales and NI).</p><p>An "all England" solution will be as unfair to northern England as a UK parliament is to the Scots. </p><p>It is not just the Scots who have rejected the Tories for decades, it is northern England, Wales and many urban conurbations right across England. To be fair, devolution has to take this into account.</p><p>But for Labour to resurect regional devolution will mean an incoming Labour government offering to give away vasts tracts of power quickly. Real power over taxation. Not just the amounts, but how it is raised. This would take real courage and something Labour have lacked for decades - real democrats in their party hierachy.</p><p>I titled this piece about proportional representation. And I do believe our first-past-the-post voting system is a root cause of the power grab at the centre, unaccountability and the polarisation of our political geography. </p><p>I believe it essential that any new assembly/parliament is elected proportionally. But I also now believe that even PR may not be enough to stop our democratic drift.</p><p>We all know our corporate media are pushing us towards a plutocracy. Billionaires and big businesses buy policies at will from our political parties either with donations or through control of the media. Our elections are increasingly bought. We have to find a way to stop that. </p><p>I believe one way is to experiment with picking our politicians at random, like we do with jury service. We could start with local government, and if successful move on to national. </p><p>It would immediately take big money out of politics and allow a wider range of society and opinion a voice in making our laws. I believe it might bring new ideas, even trust back into our system. </p><p>Without something radical, I fear for the levels of inequality and dysfunction awaiting our society. Scottish independence was one democratic lever, now cruelly snatched away. How long will we wait for the next one?</p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-32118468021980486532014-09-14T09:06:00.001+01:002014-09-14T10:33:21.997+01:00Scotland: Vote YES For A Better World<p>A fundamental power of an independent state is control over its taxes.</p><p>The UK is one of the most centralised states in the world. With nearly all taxation controlled from Westminster.</p><p>If there is a No vote next week then that is unlikely to change.</p><p>Constitutional powers such as voting systems and at what level of government control over taxation are set, are portrayed in the media as secondary issues that don't really excite the public.</p><p>But something has happened in Scotland over the last 2 years in the build up to their independence referendum. The public have got excited over the constitution.</p><p>This is great for geeks like me, who have always been primarily interested in the constitutional arrangements and less so in the daily practical challenges of running public services (important though that is). For me, before we can really improve government, we have to get the constitution right.</p><p>At least until the referendum vote is cast next week, Scotland has leverage over Westminster. Whether they have leverage after that or are reliant on promises is up to them. A No vote will let Westminster off the hook. (Remember the power to hold any future referendum and the terms of that referendum will be with Westminster. It could be a very long wait before Scots get this chance again).</p><p>The last minute promises of devolution from Westminster propose Scotland the ability to set the level of 18% of its taxes, but not to vary their design. The design of taxes is just as, if not more important than the level they are set at. </p><p>A good example is council tax. Councils know it is a regressive tax. But they have no power to change that. So their choice is fund public services better and raise taxes for those least able to afford it. Or cut public services and hurt the vulnerable who depend on them. Not the nicest of choices, but power to change this resides only in Westminster. </p><p>The same applies to other taxes. Given a crude power to alter the basic rate of income tax but without the ability to change thresholds or higher rates is a very limited power. </p><p>One of the strongest reasons for supporting a Yes is accountability. It is very difficult for the public to influence specific policies at a national level, and the bigger the electorate, the more remote this accountability can be. Power needs to be devolved down, to make it easier for people to have a say.</p><p>When we vote, we weigh up all the policies on offer from each party, plus a general feel of trust, competency etc. This makes it very difficult to make known what our feelings are on specific policies. </p><p>It is natural for any governing body to want as much power as possible. So these two issues collide. An electorate's inability to highlight which policies are important and Westminster's ability to easily dodge the issues, especially when it comes to devolving power. Over the last 30 years power has been going the other way as central government hoovers it up. (This is why it is important to have a written constitution protecting local government powers).</p><p>Westminster will only devolve powers if it feels threatened and even then only as little as it can get away with. This referendum has threatened Westminster but they are still trying to get out of it on the cheap. They are not promising enough devolved powers to Scotland and not promising any to the rest of the UK. Next week if there is a No vote, even these weak promises will feel less important to Westminster as it returns to business as usual. They are bound to be watered down even more.</p><p>And any more lopsidedness in the union in terms of devolution will just prolong the agony as the union tears itself apart.</p><p>Scotland wants a different political direction to Westminster and is too small a part of the union to be heard properly.</p><p>A Yes vote is right for Scotland and will inspire the rest of the UK and other people's around the world to demand more power closer to them locally. </p><p>Westminster has shown it is not serious about devolution. Scotland cannot afford to waste another generation hoping to be heard. Vote Yes to a new constitution on Thursday. </p>Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com0